

/ 














































































































' 



























* 
















































RUSSELL SAGE FOUNDATION PUBLICATIONS 

THE STANDARD OF LIVING AMONG WORKINGMEN'S 
FAMILIES IN NEW YORK CITY. By Robert Coit Chapin, 
Ph.D. 388pages. 131 tables. i6diagrams. Price, postpaid, $2.00. 
MEDICAL INSPECTION OF SCHOOLS. By Luther Halsey 
Gulick, M.D., and Leonard P. Ayres, Ph.D. 286 pages. Third 
edition. Price, postpaid, $1.00. 

LAGGARDS IN OUR SCHOOLS: A Study of Retardation and 
Elimination. By Leonard P. Ayres, Ph.D. 252 pages. 106 
tables. 38 diagrams. Third edition. Price, postpaid, $1.50. 
CORRECTION AND PREVENTION. Four volumes prepared for 
the Eighth International Prison Congress. Edited by Charles 
Richmond Henderson, Ph.D. Price per set, postpaid, $10; per 
volume, net, $2.50. Titles: Prison Reform; Penal and Re¬ 
formatory Institutions; Preventive Agencies and Methods; 
Preventive Treatment of Neglected Children. 

JUVENILE COURT LAWS IN THE UNITED STATES: Sum¬ 
marized. 160 pages. Price, postpaid, $1.50. 

THE PITTSBURGH SURVEY. Six volumes. Fully illustrated. 
Price per set, postpaid, $10; per volume, net, $1.50. 

Women and the Trades. By Elizabeth Beardsley Butler. Price, postpaid, $1.72. 
Work-Accidents and the Law. By Crystal Eastman. Price, postpaid, $1.71. 
The Steel Workers. By John A. Fitch, New York Dept, of Labor. Price, post¬ 
paid, $1.71. 

Homestead: The Households of a Mill Town. By Margaret F. Byington. 
Price, postpaid, $1.70. 

The Pittsburgh District. Symposium by John R. Commons, Robert A. Woods, 
Florence Kelley, Charles Mulford Robinson and others. (In preparation.) 
Pittsburgh: The Gist of the Survey. By Paul U. Kellogg. (In preparation.) 

HOUSING REFORM. A Handbook for Practical Use in American 
Cities. By Lawrence Veiller. 220 pages. 5 schedules. Price, 
postpaid, $1.25. 

A MODEL TENEMENT HOUSE LAW. By Lawrence Veiller. 

130 pages. Price, postpaid, $1.25. 

AMONG SCHOOL GARDENS. By M. Louise Greene, M.Pd., 
Ph.D. Illustrated. 380 pages. Price, postpaid, $1.25. 
WORKINGMEN'S INSURANCE IN EUROPE. By Lee K. 
Frankel and Miles M. Dawson, with the co-operation of Louis 
I. Dublin. 450 pages. 145 tables. Price, postpaid, $2.70. 
THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST TUBERCULOSIS IN THE UNITED 
STATES: Including a Directory of Institutions. Compiled under 
direction of the National Association for Study and Prevention of 
Tuberculosis. By Philip P. Jacobs. 467 pages. Price, post¬ 
paid, $ 1.00. 

REPORT ON THE DESIRABILITY OF ESTABLISHING AN 
EMPLOYMENT BUREAU IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK. 
By Edward T. Devine, Ph.D., LL.D. 238 pages. Price, post¬ 
paid, $1.00. 

WIDER USE OF THE SCHOOL PLANT. By Clarence A. Perry. 
Illustrated. 404 pages. Price, postpaid, $1.25. 

CHARITIES PUBLICATION COMMITTEE 

IO 5 EAST 22D STREET, NEW YORK 



RUSSELL SAGE 
FOUNDATION 


LOCAL OPTION IN 
MASSACHUSETTS 

BY 

AMY F. ACTON, LL.B. 

* i 

INSPECTOR OF INCORPORATED CHARITIES, FOR THE STATE 
BOARD OF CHARITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 


o > 

»*> > 

NEW YORK 

CHARITIES PUBLICATION 
COMMITTEE . . . MCMXI 












Copyright, 1911, by 
The Russell Sage Foundation 


<« 1 
< ' * 

< «- 

* 9 * 

« < 


PRESS OF WM, F. FELL CO. 
PHILADELPHIA 



PREFATORY NOTE 


I T IS not easy, even in a small community, to 
trace the effect of local option on industrial 
and social conditions which result from a 
combination of many and varied causes. Dis¬ 
cussion on the subject has been obscured by in¬ 
adequate knowledge of facts and by want of appre¬ 
ciation of the complexity of the causes that have 
produced results. The character of the popula¬ 
tion, whether residential or industrial, the nature 
of its industries, whether these require skilled and 
permanent or unskilled and casual labor, the 
method of administering local ordinances, the 
character of nearby communities and of inter-city 
transit facilities, are only some of the factors that 
must be considered in measuring the value of local 
option as a means of social reform. This study 
was undertaken with the hope that the collection 
and comparison of significant facts about a few 
closely connected cities which had tried both 
license and no-license would contribute to clear 
thinking. The facts have been carefully gathered 
and are impartially presented. 

Miss Acton, who is a Bachelor of Laws and a 
member of the Massachusetts Bar, made this study 
while a fellow and later an assistant in research 


PREFATORY NOTE 


in the School for Social Workers, Boston. She 
had previously given a year to the regular course 
in the school. 

This school is maintained by Simmons College 
and Harvard University. Its purpose is to 
increase the number of persons who seek to cure 
or prevent social degeneration and to work for 
social betterment. It aims to bring to students 
a knowledge of the best methods, and the latest 
experience and thought in this field and to train 
them to do practical work wisely, in professional 
positions and as volunteers. Through the aid of 
the Russell Sage Foundation several fellowships 
are maintained for the securing of social data and 
for the training of workers in social service. 


vi 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


PAGE 


Prefatory Note . 

V 

List of Tables.- . 

ix 

Introduction. 

• 3 

Chapter I 

Population. 

• 13 

Chapter II 

Tax Rates and Valuations. 

. 19 

Chapter III 

Bank Deposits. 

. 27 

Chapter IV 

School Attendance. 

• • 33 

Chapter V 
Expenditures for Public Charity 

. . 39 

Chapter VI 

Expenditures for Police Protection . 

. 47 

Chapter VII 

Arrests for Drunkenness .... 

. 51 


Chapter VIII 

The Importation of Liquor into No-License Cities . 65 

vii 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Chapter IX 

PAGE 

Sales by Druggists. 

. 8l 

Chapter X 

Enforcement of the No-License Law 

• 93 

Chapter XI 

Condition of Business under No-License 

. 101 

Chapter XII 

Employers’ Point of View. 

. 107 


APPENDICES 
Appendix A 

Summary of the Most Important Legislation Deal¬ 
ing with the Liquor Traffic in Massachusetts, 
from Colonial Days to 1908.119 

Appendix B 

Tables.126 

Index .145 


viii 


LIST OF TABLES 


TABLE PAGE 


I. License Vote. 

. 126 

11 . Population. 

. 127 

III. Property and Taxation 

. 128 

IV. Taxes. 

. 129 

V. Co-operative Banks . 

. 130 

VI. Savings Banks .... 

. 131 

VII. National Banks .... 

. 132 

VIII. School Attendance 

133 

IX. School Attendance (continued) . 

. 134 

X. Public Relief. 

. 135 

XI. Public Relief (continued) . 

. 136 

XII. Police Department 

• 137 

XIII. Arrests. 

. . 138 

XIV. Arrests (continued) 

. . 139 

XV. Arrests (continued) 

. 140 

XVI. Arrests of Women 

. 141 

XVII. Druggists. 

. 142 

XVIII. Violation of Law . 

• 143 


IX 








INTRODUCTION 




INTRODUCTION 


HIS study was undertaken for the purpose 



of ascertaining to what extent the social 


A and economic conditions of a community 
are affected by its policy in regard to licensing the 
sale of liquor; and also to learn the effect which 
the removal of saloons from a city has upon the 
sobriety of its people. Partisans on both sides 
claim that the beneficial results of license or no¬ 
license can easily be demonstrated. As this state¬ 
ment is often seen in print and is repeatedly made 
from platform and pulpit, its basis in fact should 
be carefully determined and its accuracy thoroughly 
tested. 

A careful examination of public documents, 
with a view to selection of material bearing upon 
the inquiry, furnished fairly complete data re¬ 
lating to the population; vote on the license ques¬ 
tion; number and class of liquor licenses issued; 
number of federal liquor taxes paid in no-license 
cities; amount of license fees and sum retained 
by each city; valuation of property; tax rate; 
police department, number employed and cost; 
public charity, number aided and cost; arrests 
for drunkenness and violation of the liquor laws; 
number of druggists’ certificates issued under 


3 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

Law of 1906, chapter 281; number of depositors in 
savings banks, national banks, and co-operative 
banks, and amounts deposited. 

This information, extending over the twenty- 
year period from 1886 to 1905, was tabulated for 
32 cities* * * § in Massachusetts, Boston being the 
only city in the state omitted from the study. 
The difference in its industries, in the number and 
make-up of its population, and the number of 
populous outlying cities which are virtually 
suburbs of the metropolis, made comparison with 
the other cities impossible. The towns,f with a 
few exceptions, have never had license. This fact, 
together with their rural character,:); made their 
inclusion in this study inexpedient. 

Of the 14 cities § presented in the tables which 
have had no-license during at least half of the 
period from 1886 to 1905, 10 cities,—Cambridge, 
Everett, Malden, Newton, Quincy, Somerville, 
Melrose, Medford, Chelsea, and Waltham,—are 
within 10 miles of Boston State House and are 
connected, with the metropolis by convenient 
electric and steam railway lines. Seven of them 
are reached by trolley for a five-cent fare, and 


* See Table II, Appendix B, page 127. 

i* 321 towns vote annually on the question of license. 

J A town may incorporate as a city when its population reaches 
12,000. 

§ For convenience, these 14 cities are usually designated in this 
study “no-license cities” and the remaining 18 cities which have 
had license for more than half the period from|i886|toj 1905,fare 
referred to as “license cities.” See grouping in tables,"especially 
Table XIII, Appendix B, page 138. 

4 


INTRODUCTION 


even those which are farthest from the center of 
the city are not over 20 minutes' ride by trolley 
from some outlying section which contains saloons. 
Thus, Waltham, which is 10 miles from the center 
of Boston, is not over five miles from the outlying 
district of Brighton, and is connected therewith by 
a direct line of trolleys, without change of cars. 
These 10 cities are, therefore, really suburbs of 
Boston, and cannot be considered typical no¬ 
license communities. Their residential character 
and their nearness to a large commercial center,* 
the make-up of their population, and the com¬ 
paratively small number of their business activi¬ 
ties, differentiate them at once from the industrial 
cities which are farther removed from the me¬ 
tropolis. In the discussion of the various phases 
of the license question which follows, this difference 
is to be borne in mind. 

After treating the subject under consideration 
as fully as possible from the statistical side, a 
more intensive study of a few of the cities was 
undertaken. The writer accordingly made per¬ 
sonal investigations of conditions in Brockton, 
Fitchburg, Waltham, Newburyport, Salem, and 
Haverhill, all of which, with the exception of the 
last named city, had recently had at least one 
year of no-license. These cities were selected 
as being not too large to yield some information to 

* The distance in miles in a direct line from the Boston General 
Post Office to the center of these cities is as follows: Cambridge, 3; 
Chelsea, 3; Everett, 3^; Malden, 5; Medford, 5; Melrose, 6^; 
Newton, 7; Quincy, 8; Somerville, 2; Waltham, 9. 

5 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

a single investigator in a limited time, and yet 
large enough to be fairly typical of city life. With 
the exception of Waltham, all are far enough 
from larger centers of population to escape being 
considered suburban. The purpose of the inquiry 
was to record the opinion of representative citizens 
as to the workings of no-license, to find out from 
the manufacturers what effect it had had upon 
the work of their employes, and from the retail 
merchants how it had affected trade. Informa¬ 
tion was sought, also, in regard to the amount of 
liquor brought into the city from outside, the 
number of liquor sales by druggists, and the prac¬ 
tical working of the various methods by which 
liquor could be legally imported by citizens. 

As a pledge to treat the source of information 
as confidential was occasionally exacted by the 
person interviewed, the material obtained from 
individuals has not been credited, and that part of 
the report which relates to field work in the six 
cities visited must therefore be treated as made 
up of anonymous expert opinion. 

LICENSE HISTORY 

The history of license in Massachusetts* from 
colonial days to the present time is interesting 
not only on account of the numerous experiments 
it offers, but because it shows that most of the 

* See Appendix A, Summary of Legislation dealing with the liquor 
question. This is a mere outline. No critical statement of the 
several laws passed has been attempted. 

6 


INTRODUCTION 


questions relating to principles and to practical 
regulations which are being threshed out in our 
day, and which bid fair to divide honest opinion 
in times to come, gave anxious hours to communi¬ 
ties and law-makers in the earliest period of the 
Commonwealth. It would be difficult to suggest 
any important American policy in regard to the 
regulation of the liquor traffic, or even any theory, 
which has not already been embodied in legisla¬ 
tion in Massachusetts. We have had prohibition, 
complete and partial; sales at wholesale and at 
retail; retail sales by druggists and physicians 
only; sales by town agents; sales of non-spiritu- 
ous liquors only; high fees, low fees, and no fees; 
druggists' licenses at $1.00 and at $50; licenses 
limited and unlimited in number; licenses issued 
by the executive, by the judiciary, by county 
officers, by city and town officers, and by special 
license boards; and, finally, laws penalizing every 
form of abuse of the sale and consumption of 
liquor. 

Among other legislation relative to liquor selling, 
Massachusetts has been foremost in giving a legal 
status to the principle of local option. The law 
which has been in force since 1881 is, however, 
not the first in the state that embodied this prin¬ 
ciple. In 1868, when the prohibitory law of 1852 
was repealed and a license law enacted, cities and 
towns were permitted to vote annually on the 
question of licensing the sale of liquor to be drunk 


7 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

on the premises.* * * § The next year, 1869, a second 
prohibitory law was passed. Two years later, 
while this measure was still in force, cities and 
towns were allowed to vote annually on the ques¬ 
tion of licensing the sale of ale, porter and beer.f 
This last “local option” provision was short-lived, 
being repealed in 1873. 

In 1875, a license law was enacted which, with 
numerous amendments and additions, has been in 
force ever since. In 1881, the present “local 
option”J feature was added to the law and is still 
in force. It provides for an annual vote in cities 
and towns upon the question of granting licenses 
for the sale of intoxicating liquors. The aldermen 
or selectmen or licensing board are not bound by a 
vote in favor of licensing, and may grant or with¬ 
hold licenses of the first five classes as they deem 
best. This discretion on the part of the licensing 
body seems to have been exercised but three 
times in the localities covered by this investiga¬ 
tion.§ If the vote is in the negative, the aider- 
men, selectmen, or licensing board have no dis¬ 
cretion and must deny licenses of the first five 
classes. Whatever the vote, they may grant or 

* See Appendix A, p. 121. (Laws of 1868, ch. 141.) 

f See Appendix A, p. 122. (Laws of 1871, ch. 334.) 

J See Appendix A, p. 122. (Laws of 1881, ch. 54.) 

§ In Haverhill, the election of 1887, and in Beverly and Waltham 
the election of 1884, gave a majority for license, but no licenses 
except sixth class ones are reported to have been issued by the city 
fathers in the three places. See Legislative Reports for 1884 and 
1887, title “Abstract of returns of licenses granted for sale of in¬ 
toxicating liquor.” 


8 


INTRODUCTION 


withhold licenses of the sixth class* to druggists, 
and it is not uncommon for them to issue such 
licenses where the vote at the annual election is 
in the negative. 

The power of the licensing body to control 
sales by druggists was, however, curtailed in 1906, 
when the State Board of Pharmacy was given 
authority to issue certificates of fitness to druggists, 
which allow them to sell liquor upon physicians' 
prescriptions in towns and cities voting no-license 
where the licensing body refuses to issue sixth 
class licenses.f 

During the 11 years from 1885 to 1895, inclusive, 
there were five state majorities for license as a re¬ 
sult of the annual vote cast by all the cities and 
towns; and in the 12 years succeeding 1895, 10 
majorities for license. In 19074 the majority for 
no-license was 13,188. This was the second largest 
since 1892, when the state was carried for no¬ 
license by 24,138 majority. It will be seen from 
a study of Table I§ that the towns and the 10 
suburban cities of Boston cast a majority of their 
votes for no-license, while Boston and the remain¬ 
ing 22 cities cast a majority for license and also 
furnished the majority of votes for license for the 
whole state. 11 

* See Appendix A, p. 123. (Laws of 1888, ch. 340.) 

f See Appendix A, p. 124. (Laws of 1906, ch. 281.) 

\ Calendar year. § See Appendix B, page 126. 

|| The total population of the state, in 1905, was 3,003,680, dis¬ 
tributed as follows: 321 towns, 32.3 per cent; 10 cities near Boston, 
12.8 per cent; Boston, 19.8 per cent; 22 remaining cities, 35.1 per 
cent. 


9 






I 


POPULATION 







CHAPTER I 


POPULATION 

TATISTICS do not bear out the claim 



repeatedly made that the population in- 


creases faster under no-license than under 
license. According to Table II,* the growth of 
population from 1885 to 1905 shows that the per¬ 
centage of increase for the 14 cities which have 
had no-license for at least one-half of the period 
varies from 400 per cent to 33.8 per cent. Everett 
and Melrose, having respectively 20 and 19 years 
of no-license, show the highest percentage of 
increase. Waltham, with 11 years of no-license, 
is exceeded in percentage of increase by four 
cities which have had not more than three years 
of no-license. Beverly and Cambridge, with con¬ 
tinuous no-license, are far down on the list, being 
outstripped by 11 cities which have had not over 
five years of no-license; while Salem, whose ex¬ 
perience has been evenly divided, is exceeded in 
percentage of growth by all the cities except five. 

The rate of growth of these various cities ap¬ 
pears to be wholly unrelated to the question of 
license or no-license. In the case of the cities in 
the neighborhood of Boston, the cause for the 


* See Appendix B, page 127. 

U 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

rapid increase in inhabitants is not far to seek. 
Boston is now too congested to afford homes for 
all the persons who are at work in the city and 
naturally would live there if they could find equal 
accommodations at prices offered outside. The 
development of electric trolley lines which began 
between the years 1890 and 1895 has brought the 
outlying cities within easy reach, and an overflow 
into uncongested territory accessible in one-half 
to three-quarters of an hour for a five or ten-cent 
fare has been the result. 

Within a radius of 15 miles of the State House 
there are 39 towns and 13 cities, with a total of 
323,343 persons engaged in gainful pursuits, of 
whom 77,506, or 24 per cent, work in Boston. 
I n the 12 cities within 12 miles of the State House,* 
27 per cent of the working population are employed 
in Boston.f It is safe to assume that a large part 
of these people, together with their families, would 
have made their homes within the city limits of 
Boston had not the suburban cities and towns, 
with their comparatively lower rents and freedom 
from crowding, been made so accessible. 

The exodus from Boston began even before the 
days of electric travel, as is shown by the per¬ 
centage of increase of population in suburban 
cities between 1885 and 1890. In the 12 cities 
within 12 miles of Boston the population increased 

* For distances, see Table II, Appendix B, page 127. 

f Massachusetts Bureau of Labor, Census of 1905. Leaflet on 
“Day-Time Population of Boston.” 

14 


POPULATION 


24.9 per cent from 1885-1890; 20.2 per cent from 
1890-1895; 14.3 per cent from 1895-1900; and 
10.7 per cent from 1900-1905. 

Brockton's early rapid growth in population 
and its desirability as a place of residence are 
frequently cited, and the cause is given by some as 
its devotion to the policy of no-license. Brockton 
has an area of 20.2 square miles, and considering 
the present population (47,794 in 1905), there 
is little doubt that all who wish to live therein 
may do so for some time to come without danger 
of congestion, and consequent loss to the city by 
overflow of population to surrounding towns. 
The public-spirited policy of its many progressive 
capitalists, who make their homes where their 
plants are situated, has served to make the city 
desirable for residence, and has attracted many 
other persons both to reside and to invest capital. 
The shoes manufactured in Brockton are high 
class goods, which require intelligent and skilled 
workmanship. The employes are well organized 
in unions, wages are sustained, and the best shoe 
workers gravitate there in sufficient numbers to 
supply the demand for help. In short, Brockton 
seems to present the most important elements 
conducive to rapid growth in population. Never¬ 
theless, the percentage of gain is shown to have 
steadily decreased at each census. 

Newburyport, a license city, which shows the 
smallest percentage of growth of all of those 
studied (7 per cent from 1885 to 1905), was 
15 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

formerly a seaport town of some importance. Its 
commerce has declined and its manufacturing 
interests are not large enough to make up for the 
loss. Its population in the last twenty years has, 
therefore, remained nearly stationary. 

Fitchburg’s greatest gain in population occurred 
between 1885 and 1890, with the increase of manu¬ 
factures. The same is true of Haverhill. The 
past history of Salem is much like that of Newbury- 
port; it was once distinctively a maritime city. 
If it now gains appreciably in numbers the increase 
must be through its manufactures; it cannot gain 
as a residence city merely. 

The gain in Waltham through the last three cen¬ 
sus periods has been fairly uniform. The number 
of local industries has not largely increased; and as 
the city is too far from Boston to receive much of 
the overflow for some time to come, it must depend 
chiefly upon its natural increase. 

We must conclude, therefore, that the cause of 
the increase or decrease in population lies deeper 
than the license question and must be sought in 
the industrial conditions peculiar to each city. 


16 


II 

TAX RATES AND VALUATIONS 


2 









CHAPTER II 


TAX RATES AND VALUATIONS 

A N argument of great weight in any discus¬ 
sion of the licensing policy is that the rev- 
^ enue from liquor licenses materially re¬ 
duces the tax rate. 

The tax rates of the 32 cities, arranged in the 
order of the number of years during which a no¬ 
license policy has been in effect in each community, 
are shown in Table III.* The rates in the first 
14 cities, which have had no-license from 10 to 
20 years during the period studied, ranged, in 
1905, from $16.80 to $21.40, the median amounts 
being $18 and $18.30. The remaining 18 cities, 
none of which have had over five years of no-license 
during that period, showed tax rates ranging from 
$15.40 to $22, the median rate being $18.40 and 
$18.50. These figures certainly show that the 
residents of license cities are not specially favored 
in the matter of tax rates. 

Statistics for single cities which have had both 
license and no-license show that their policy on 
the license question alone does not determine the 

* See Appendix B, page 128. The tax rate is the amount levied 
upon each^thousand dollars of real and personal estate not exempt 
from taxation. 


19 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

tax rate. In the period from 1882-to 1887, in¬ 
clusive, Brockton had three license and three no¬ 
license years. Two changes from “no” to “yes” 
were followed by one advance and one reduction 
in the tax rate; two from “yes” to “no” by an 
advance in the rate; while two succeeding years 
of license showed an advance of $2.20 in the 
second year. Fitchburg advanced the tax rate 
somewhat regularly in no-license years and re¬ 
duced it in license years, except from 1902 to 
1905, inclusive, when the rate steadily increased 
regardless of the license policy, diminishing slightly 
in the license year 1906. In Newburyport, Sa¬ 
lem and Waltham, the tax rate did not regularly 
increase or decrease with the fluctuation in the 
license policy. The tax rates for five license years 
were larger and for seven other license years 
smaller than the rates for a corresponding number 
of no-license years with which they alternated. 
Statistics of five cities* show that six out of 17 
license years had higher tax rates than the pre¬ 
ceding or following no-license years. 

Another method of showing the same thing is 
presented in Table IV,f which gives the per 
capita revenue derived from liquor licenses and 
its ratio to the total revenue; the amounts are 
reduced to a per capita basis. The per capita 
amounts raised by taxation in license cities, in 

* Brockton 1883, Fitchburg 1905, Newburyport 1905, Salem 1903, 
Waltham 1892, 1894. 

f See Appendix B, page 129. 


20 


TAX RATES AND VALUATIONS 

1906, ranged from $10.31 (Chicopee) to $18.22 
(Springfield), the median amounts being $14.43 an d 
$14.53. The total per capita revenue varied from 
$11.55 (Chicopee) to $19.24 (Springfield), the 
median amount being $15.71 (Newburyport). 
Thus the revenue from license fees in these cities 
was small, varying from $0.95 (Chelsea) to $1.96 
(Lawrence) per capita, the median being $1.20 
(Pittsfield).* * * § In the group of no-license cities, for 
the same year, the per capita revenue from taxa¬ 
tion ranged from $15.48 (Waltham) to $29.90 
(Newton), the median amount being $18.26 (Brock¬ 
ton). In other words, nine license citiesf had a 
smaller per capita revenue from taxes and license 
fees together than that of the no-license citiesj 
showing the lowest amount derived from taxation 
alone; while the per capita revenue in five no¬ 
license cities§ exceeded the largest per capita 
revenue found in the license group. 11 This leaves 11 
license and seven no-license cities which had ap¬ 
proximately the same range of income. To say 
that the license fees in these 11 cities gave them 
an advantage over the seven no-license cities, by 
reducing the per capita amount to be raised by 
taxation, to the small extent shown, would not be 

* Cities retain three-fourths of the revenue from their liquor 
licenses; the remainder goes to the state. 

f Chelsea, Chicopee, Haverhill, Lawrence, Marlboro, North 
Adams, Northampton, Taunton and Woburn. 

X Malden and Waltham. 

§ Beverly, Cambridge, Medford, Melrose and Newton. 

|| Springfield. 


21 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

wholly unfair. That the rates paid by the tax¬ 
payers in the license cities were lowered to any 
appreciable extent does not necessarily follow. 
For instance, nine cities* with tax rates varying 
from $18 to $19 produced per capita revenues 
ranging from $13.94 to $27.46. The compara¬ 
tively small per capita amount derived from saloon 
licenses, if added to or subtracted from these 
amounts, would neither change the rates mate¬ 
rially nor lessen the variation in the revenue pro¬ 
duced. 

Indeed, we are forced to conclude that there are 
many factors in fixing the tax rate; one of the 
most important of these is the amount of assess¬ 
able property within the jurisdiction, and this is 
subject to fluctuation in any city regardless of 
the license policy. The changing character of 
certain sections of a city, from residential to in¬ 
dustrial, to say nothing of the multitude of lesser 
causes, affects the valuation and consequently the 
tax rate. Thus, the rate in Waltham for 1908 was 
$18, an increase of $1.50 over that of 1907 (both 
years being no-license), the larger rate being at¬ 
tributed partly to the withdrawal from the tax 
list of a large estate which passed by will to a 
charitable corporation. The estate, by transfer, 
later returned to the list of assessable property, 
but the subsequent tax rate was not reduced pro¬ 
portionately. In some of the metropolitan cities, 

* Beverly, Woburn, Newburyport, Fall River, New Bedford, 
Pittsfield, Cambridge, Quincy, Taunton. 


22 


TAX RATES AND VALUATIONS 

so-called,* comprising the no-license suburban 
communities around Boston, the metropolitan 
tax for water, sewers and parks is comparatively 
heavy and varies from year to year. The financial 
mismanagement of cities, and extravagances 
that necessitate the collection of more money, 
must also be mentioned. There are so many con¬ 
tributing causes at work that one cannot determine 
with any degree of certainty to what extent the 
revenue from liquor licenses reduces the tax levy. 

* Cambridge, Everett, Malden, Medford, Melrose, Newton, 
Quincy, Somerville and Waltham. 


23 




BANK DEPOSITS 







CHAPTER III 


BANK DEPOSITS 


N O one but an enthusiast who refuses to 
consider the many factors which enter into 
the increase or decrease of bank deposits, 
will claim that the license policy affects the bank¬ 
ing business to any appreciable degree. So that 
whatever Tables V, VI and VII* may present, 
the conclusion must be negative when we attempt 
to link the statistics with a particular license 
policy. 

According to Table V, the no-license cities (the 
group numbered 1-14 in the table) had, on the 
whole, a larger average number of shareholders in 
co-operative banks per thousand inhabitants and a 
larger value of shares in 1905 than the license 
cities; but the latter showed a more rapid rate of 
increase during the 20 years since 1885.! 

The statistics of savings banks presented in 
Table VI show that the largest average number of 
depositors in savings banks per thousand popula- 

* See Appendix B, pages 130, 131, and 132. 
f Median number of shares per 1000 inhabitants: No-license cities, 
36.4 (Newton) and 43.5 (Beverly). License cities, 35.9 (Gloucester). 

Median value of shares per capita: No-license cities, $17.40 (Bev¬ 
erly) and $17.50 (Brockton). License cities, $12.10 (Worcester). 

Median amount of increase in value of shares: No-license cities, 
$8.25 (Brockton). License cities, $10.20 (Marlboro). 

27 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

tion and the greatest average per capita deposits 
were to be found in the license cities.* Table VII 
shows that the average amount of deposits per 
capita in national banks was larger in license 
than in no-license cities.f 

In the case of the separate cities, a comparison 
between the number of no-license years and the 
per capita deposits proves, by the arbitrary 
results obtained, how little connection there is 
between these two things. Thus, four cities 
(Cambridge, Everett, Somerville and Melrose) 
which had no-license throughout the period studied 
showed a smaller number of shareholders in co¬ 
operative banks (Table V), in 1905, than 12 
cities which had not over five years of no-license 
during the same period. These same four cities had 
a lower per capita valuation of shares than that 
of nine cities which had not over three years of 
no-license. Newburyport, with but two years 
of no-license out of 20, led all the cities in the 
number of its savings bank depositors (Table VI) 
per thousand population, and in the per capita 
amount of its deposits. The two cities (Northamp¬ 
ton and Springfield) with the largest per capita 
deposits in national banks (Table VII) in 1905 

* Median number of depositors per 1000 inhabitants: No-license 
cities, 465 (Newton) and 475 (Cambridge). License cities, 610 
(Taunton and North Adams). 

Median yearly deposits per capita: No-license cities, $28.10 
(Waltham) and $29 (Newton). License cities, $42 (Taunton) and 
$43 (Holyoke). 

f Median amount of deposits per capita: No-license cities, $31.60 
(Waltham). License cities, $63 (Marlboro) and $67.50 (Worcester). 

28 


BANK DEPOSITS 


had 19 years of license during the twenty-year 
period, while the two cities with the smallest per 
capita deposits had 20 years of no-license (Somer¬ 
ville) and 19 years of license (Chicopee) respec¬ 
tively. 

A reference to Tables V, VI, and VII will dis¬ 
close other facts which tend to disprove any con¬ 
nection between the question of bank deposits 
and the license policy, and show on what a super¬ 
ficial basis such comparisons are made. 


29 





IV 

SCHOOL ATTENDANCE 




CHAPTER IV 


SCHOOL ATTENDANCE 

I N studying the question of school attendance 
and graduation, several facts must be 
taken into account, which may modify in 
some measure the results shown in Tables VIII 
and IX.* There are some gaps in the available 
information. No figures could be obtained show¬ 
ing the number of pupils of high school age or 
indeed of any age and grade in the various private 
and parochial schools. Even on the basis of 
ampler figures, there would be no way of deter¬ 
mining how many pass from such schools into the 
upper classes of the public schools and thus swell 
the number of their graduates, or of showing how 
many drop out of the public schools to finish their 
courses in private schools. That both of these 
movements are going on is well known, but to 
what extent they affect the proportion of pupils 
graduating from public schools in each of the 
several cities under consideration cannot be as¬ 
certained from any statistics published by the 
State Board of Education. The age basis (7 to 
14) used in estimating the percentage of public 

* See Appendix B, pages 133 and 134. 

33 


3 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

grammar school children who complete the course 
is fairly reliable, but it must be remembered that 
the movement of pupils between public and pri¬ 
vate schools may affect this ratio to an unknown 
extent. 

In regard to school attendance, we find the 
lowest percentage in the industrial cities of Chico¬ 
pee, Fall River, Lawrence, Lowell and New Bed¬ 
ford, and in Fitchburg and Waltham, the per¬ 
centage of attendance in these places ranging from 
60.8 to 67.5 (Table VIII). As attendance is 
compulsory until fourteen years of age, these low 
percentages are undoubtedly due principally to a 
comparatively small attendance at school of 
persons between the ages of fourteen and nine¬ 
teen.* The 14 no-license cities, which have on 
the whole a higher percentage of children between 
five and nineteenf years of age in school than the 
license cities, are largely residential, and we are 
not surprised to find that the children in such 
communities are kept in school longer than are 
those in the industrial cities which for the most 
part are found in the license column. The same 
explanations hold good in regard to the percentage 
of graduates, which is larger for the grammar 
schools in no-license than in license communities. 
The difference in the percentage of high school 

* The statistics in Table VIII are based on nineteen years as the 
maximum age limit for public school pupils. 

f The median per cent of children in school in no-license cities is 
77 (Somerville); in license cities 73.7 (Pittsfield). 


34 


SCHOOL ATTENDANCE 

graduates in the two classes of cities is very slight, 
the license cities leading (Table IX). 

The policy of license or no-license alone cannot 
fairly be said to materially affect the school at¬ 
tendance, as it must be obvious that the economic 
conditions in each city, the make-up of its popula¬ 
tion, and the nature and extent of its industries, 
are important factors.* 

* The question of the distribution of school children to the adult 
population was considered in its relation to the ratio of school at¬ 
tendance. The result of the tabulation of the statistics was purely 
negative in its bearing upon this subject and is, therefore, not pre¬ 
sented. 


35 








V 

EXPENDITURE FOR PUBLIC CHARITY 




CHAPTER V 


EXPENDITURE FOR PUBLIC CHARITY 

M ANY persons argue that a large proportion 
of public charges become such owing to 
intemperance, and that if a no-license 
policy is accompanied by a lower cost of expendi¬ 
ture for public charity, there must be less liquor 
drunk, and the case for no-license as a reducer 
of poverty is proved. 

This reasoning assumes, (i) that poverty is 
caused by the drinking habit; (2) that less liquor 
is consumed by persons of intemperate habits 
under no-license than under license; and (3) 
that the cost of public charity is in direct propor¬ 
tion to the amount of poverty existing. 

The first assumption cannot be dwelt upon in 
this study, although it may not be amiss to say 
that many thoughtful persons claim that in¬ 
temperance as a cause of poverty is generally ex¬ 
aggerated, although in many cases it accompanies 
a condition of poverty. The second assumption 
is considered in a subsequent chapter* which 
deals with the proneness of habitual drinkers to 
continue their excesses under no-license. The 


* Chapter VII, page 51. 
39 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

third assumption ignores the variety of standards 
cities have in dispensing poor relief, which inevita¬ 
bly affect the cost. It fails also to recognize the 
relation which the make-up of the population and 
the condition of industries bear to the question of 
public charity. A more or less shifting class of un¬ 
skilled workers congregate in large textile centers 
like Fall River, Lawrence and Lowell, and in cities 
like Haverhill, Holyoke, Marlboro, Salem, and Wo¬ 
burn, where the principal factories turn out a com¬ 
paratively cheap product and employ low class 
labor. Many of these persons are so near to the 
poverty line that they quickly feel any event which 
cuts off or diminishes their earnings. Although the 
industrial cities mentioned have a comparatively 
large number of persons aided by public charity 
and at a high rate of cost, it is impossible to de¬ 
termine how far this condition of affairs is due to 
the policy of licensing the sale of liquor, without 
specific consideration of the different conditions 
peculiar to each city, and of the extent to which a 
reduction in earnings tends to thrust many of the 
working class below the poverty line. 

Table X* shows the number of persons per 
thousand population in the different cities sup¬ 
ported by public charity during the period studied. 
Waltham (no-license) had in 1905 the smallest 
ratio of persons supported by public charity of any 
city, 10 per thousand; while the ratio in Beverly 
(no-license), 40.5 per thousand, was exceeded by 

* See Appendix B, page 135. 

40 


EXPENDITURE FOR PUBLIC CHARITY 

only four cities under license (Fall River, Haverhill, 
Holyoke, and Lowell). In three license cities 
(Lynn, North Adams, and Worcester), the ratio 
in 1905 compares well with the lowest ratios found 
in no-license cities. The cities of Cambridge, 
Everett, Medford, Somerville, and Waltham form a 
group with a lower average number relieved than 
is found in any of the other no-license cities. The 
grouping of cities by the number of license years 
in the twenty-year period does not show any 
regular increase or decrease in the numbers sup¬ 
ported by public charity, as the number of license 
years increases, nor does it reveal any connection 
between the cost of public charity and the question 
of license. 

Eleven of the group of 14 no-license cities show 
a decrease in cost since 1885, while the license 
cities during the same period show an increase in 
all but five cities. Eight license cities out of the 
18 in this group had a lower rate than Beverly 
(no-license) in 1905 ($ .85); while Waltham (no¬ 
license) , with $ .37 per capita, was nearly paralleled 
by Worcester (license) which had a rate of $ .38 
per capita. The cities near Boston show a com¬ 
paratively low average cost, although Melrose, 
with a per capita expenditure of $ .62, exceeds 
three license cities in respect to cost. 

Table XI * shows that in the five cities which, 
since 1885, have had several years of license and 
no-license in alternation, namely, Brockton, Fitch- 

* See Appendix B, page 136. 

41 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

burg, Newburyport, Salem, and Waltham, a 
change from no-license to license does not always 
mean an increase in the ratio of number of persons 
relieved and cost of relief. Brockton, in its two 
license years since 1885, increased its ratio of 
persons supported and its per capita cost once. 
Fitchburg, with a record of six license years since 
1885, increased its ratio of persons supported 
twice, and its percentage of cost but once. New¬ 
buryport, with two no-license years in the period, 
showed an increased per capita cost of public 
charity in one license year. In Salem, three of the 
10 years of license showed an increase in cost and 
in the number of persons supported. In Waltham, 
during nine years of license, only three years 
showed an increase in the number supported, 
while two additional years showed an increase in 
cost. 

Nearly all agents of both public and private 
charity declared that most of the excessive drinkers 
with whom they came in contact were of the un¬ 
skilled, or common laborer type, possessing little 
intelligence; persons whose habits and lack of train¬ 
ing brought them quickly to a point below the 
poverty line. All stated that in their opinion no¬ 
license was chiefly beneficial to the younger and 
more hopeful portion of the community who had 
not become confirmed drinkers. 

There is no certainty that a study of the cases 
■of the individuals helped by public charity in the 
different cities in both license and no-license years 
42 


SCHOOL ATTENDANCE 

would reveal how far any increase in numbers and 
cost in license years could fairly be traced to the 
license policy. While the close relationship of 
drunkenness to want has been demonstrated, 
charitable agents who deal with the individual 
cases are not at all sure that no-license means 
temperance for the majority of those who are 
known to them as drinking people. Their testi¬ 
mony seems to show that when there is an increase 
in the number and cost of persons cared for in 
license years, it is usually the result of more ex¬ 
cessive drinking on the part of those whose de¬ 
pendents are still objects of charity in no-license 
years, though in some cases the applications for 
aid may be less frequent. While increases in 
both numbers and cost have been noted in some 
license years in Tables X and XI, all the factors 
which might fairly enter into and influence such 
fluctuations should also be considered. 


43 





VI 

EXPENDITURES FOR POLICE 
PROTECTION 






CHAPTER VI 


EXPENDITURES FOR POLICE 
PROTECTION 

HE claim that a no-license policy decreases 



the expenditure for police protection would 


A seem, from an inspection of Table XII,* 
to have no foundation in fact. Ten license cities 
show a smaller per capita expenditure for this 
purpose in 1905 than the cities of Beverly, Brock¬ 
ton, Fitchburg and Salem, all of which have been 
for at least ten years under no-license. The per 
capita expenditure ($ .82) of Waltham (no-license) 
is greater than that of the license cities of Chicopee 
(<P .71) and Northampton ($ .52). 

A grouping of cities by the number of license 
and no-license years in each, from 1886 to 1905, 
indicates that the license question has little bear¬ 
ing on the expense under consideration, as the 
amounts do not increase or decrease with any 
regularity with the number of license years in the 
twenty-year period. 

The size and cost of a police department clearly 
depend largely upon the kind of community it 
serves. The smaller cities which are not largely 


* See Appendix B, page 137. 
47 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

residential, such as Chicopee, Haverhill, Marlboro, 
Newburyport, and Northampton, have a small per 
capita cost. The industrial centers and the cities 
which are largely residential, including most of 
those near Boston, have a higher expense per capita. 
Newton (no-license), which leads in the outlay 
for policing, ($1.91 per capita in 1905), covers 
a large, sparsely settled area and thus demands 
more protection in proportion to population than 
other residential places. Cambridge (no-license), 
which has a large area, most of it thickly settled, 
is almost metropolitan in the character of its 
population and industries, and is, at the same time, 
a residential suburb of Boston. Its per capita 
outlay in 1905 was $1.57. Such conditions 
should call for more police protection than the 
small residential or rural community. Allow¬ 
ance must be made also for the demands of the 
taxpayers in different places. Furthermore, poli¬ 
cies differ in regard to the proportion of cost ex¬ 
pended upon regular and reserve police. Some 
communities depend largely upon their reserves 
who are paid when employed, others upon having 
a larger proportion of regular patrolmen. The 
question of policing constitutes a separate prob¬ 
lem in each city, and it is impossible to show 
that the license policy affects the situation to any 
appreciable extent. 


48 


VII 

ARRESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS 





CHAPTER VII 


ARRESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS 

NE of the most noticeable and direct results 
of the abolition of saloons in a community 



^ / is the apparent decrease in the number of 
its inhabitants who are arrested for drunkenness. 
Table XIII* indicates the results of the two poli¬ 
cies in this respect. In this table the average 
number of such arrests for each city having had at 
least io years of no-license is shown for the years 
it was under no-license. These figures are con¬ 
trasted with the average number of arrests in 
license years in cities having had less than io years 
of no-license. The result, with some exceptions, is 
in favor of a lower ratio of arrests in no-license 
than in license years, though the ratio for 19 years 
of license in Chicopee is lower than the ratio 
in Fitchburg for 14 years and in Brockton for 18 
years of no-license; while the average number 
of arrests in Holyoke for 20 years of license 
is lower than the average in Brockton for the 
same period of no-license. The uniform testimony 
of citizens who have seen the two policies in 
operation during successive years in any city 


* See Appendix B, page 138. 
51 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

is that drunkenness becomes less conspicuous when 
the saloons are abolished, and this conclusion is 
reached by license as well as by no-license people 
The contrast of a license year followed by a 
no-license year is brought out sharply by the 
statistics obtained from police blotters in five 
cities. They are as follows:* 


City 


Brockton. 

Fitchburg.... 
Newburyport. 

Salem. 

Waltham. 


Year 

Policy 

Arrests 

for 

Drunk¬ 

enness 

May 1, 1898 to May 1, 1899 

License 

1621 

“ 1, 1899 to “ 1, 1900 

No-License 

456 

May 1, 1906 to May 1, 1907 

License 

1220 

“ 1, 1907 to “ 1, 1908 

No-License 

3 8 5 

May 1, 1906 to May 1, 1907 

License 

671 

“ 1, 1907 to “ 1, 1908 

No-License 

178 

May 1, 1906 to May 1, 1907 

License 

253 8 

“ 1, 1907 to “ 1, 1908 

No-License 

633 

May 1, 1900 to May 1, 1901 

License 

634 

“ 1, 1901 to “ 1, 1902 

No-License 

179 


The large number of persons arrested in no¬ 
license years is very significant as bearing upon 
the extent to which the no-license policy is en¬ 
forced. The returns for no-license years are 
probably conservative in many cases, for it is a 
well-known fact that where the kitchen-bar trade 
flourishes, the actual number of persons who under 

* The statistics of arrests for drunkenness published in the annual 
reports of cities and in the reports of the Prison Commissioners are 
not compiled for the exact license year, which begins May ist. To 
separate such arrests by years of license and no-license when one 
policy follows the other, it is necessary to make a count from the 
original records. Because of this fact, but two contrasting years 
were obtained from each of the five cities. 


52 













ARRESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS 

other: conditions would be liable to arrest for 
drunkenness is not likely to appear in the police 
returns. It is common experience that special 
efforts are made by the illegal dealers to shield 
their customers from arrest as a matter of safety 
for themselves. 

To leave the matter here, however, would be 
wholly misleading, for statistics of arrests in no¬ 
license cities give but a partial view of the question. 
The comparative degree of sobriety in these cities 
must be measured not only by the number of 
arrests within their borders but also by arrests 
of their residents for drunkenness in other places. 

Table XIV * gives some idea of the comparative 
extent of arrests of non-residents for drunkenness 
in license and no-license years in the cities which 
publish such statistics. The figures for no¬ 
license years collected for five cities show, on the 
whole, a lower percentage of arrests of non-resi¬ 
dents for drunkenness than the percentage of 
arrests in license years in ten f cities, for the same 
cause. The designation “non-resident” given in 
police reports is not to be implicitly relied upon, 
and due allowance must be made for misinterpre¬ 
tation of the term by police officers, as well as 
for misinformation chargeable to the person ar¬ 
rested. 

More than one-third of the persons arrested in 
license cities for drunkenness are classed as non- 

* See Appendix B, page 139. 
f Gardner, which appears in the table, is a town. 

53 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

residents, the proportions in 1906 varying, as will 
be seen by the table, from 16.9 per cent in Fall 
River (which shares the patronage of persons from 
no-license places with the license centers of 
Taunton and New Bedford) to 54.0 per cent in 
Salem. In Boston, in 1906,* 44.5 per cent of all 
persons arrested for drunkenness were non-resi¬ 
dents. Most of the arrests for drunkenness in 
no-license cities situated near license cities occur 
at the depots and street car termini at night. The 
railroad travel from Newburyport (no-license) to 
Ipswich (license) in May, 1907, was 304.0 per cent 
larger than in May, 1908, when Ipswich had re¬ 
turned to no-license; while from Salem (no¬ 
license) to Lynn (license) it was 73.5 per cent 
larger in May, 1907, than in May, 1908, when 
Lynn changed its policy.f 
The statistics presented in Table XV J were ob¬ 
tained from several license cities and show the 
residence of persons arrested within their borders 
who came from no-license cities. An average of 
15.6 persons per thousand of the population from 


♦Total arrests for drunkenness in Boston 35,728; non-residents, 
15,947. Second Annual Report of Boston Police Commissioners, 
f Number of railroad tickets sold in May, 1907, from Newburyport 
(no-license) to Ipswich (license), 2217. 

Number of railroad tickets sold in May, 1907, from Salem (no¬ 
license) to Lynn (license), 41,240. 

Number of railroad tickets sold in May, 1908, from Newburyport 
(no-license) to Ipswich (no-license), 549. 

Number of railroad tickets sold in May, 1908, from Salem (no¬ 
license) to Lynn (no-license), 23,776. 

\ See Appendix B, page 140. The comparisons in the succeeding 
paragraphs are based chiefly upon figures quoted in Table XV. 

54 


ARRESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS 

no-license cities were arrested for drunkenness 
while visiting license cities. 

In 1906, Beverly (no-license) arrested 23 per¬ 
sons* per thousand of its population for drunken¬ 
ness. During that year, 29.1 per thousand Beverly 
residents were arrested in Salem (license), and 
6.5 per thousand in Boston for the same offense, 
a total of 58.6 per thousand. In Quincy, in 1906 
(no-license), 23 persons per thousand were arrested; 
but in Boston, 30.9 per thousand Quincy residents 
were arrested for the same offense, bringing the 
ratio of arrests to be credited to Quincy up to 53.9. 
In Newburyport, in 1907 (no-license), 178 persons, 
or 12.2 per thousand, were arrested for drunken¬ 
ness, while 175 of its citizens, or 11.9 per thousand, 
were taken into custody by the I pswich police, mak¬ 
ing a total of 353, or 24.1 per thousand. In 1906 
(license), 46 per thousand had been arrested in 
Newburyport.f In Waltham,f in 1900 (license), 
27 persons per thousand were arrested for drunk¬ 
enness. In 1906 (no-license), 12.7 per thousand 
were arrested in Waltham, while 13.1 per thousand 
of its residents were arrested in Boston, a total of 
25.7 per thousand. In 1907 (no-license), 14 per 
thousand were arrested in Waltham; and while 
the number of Waltham residents arrested in 
Boston has not been compiled, it is safe to assume 

* This percentage of arrests for drunkenness is the largest re¬ 
corded in Beverly's city reports; the next largest, 15.4 per thousand 
population, occurring in 1903. 

t Calculated from figures given in annual reports of Newburyport 
and Waltham. 


55 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

that it will be as large as in 1906, which would 
carry the total to 27 per thousand population. 

In Ipswich* (license) during the six weeks end¬ 
ing July 30, 1907, 90 Newburyport (no-license) 
residents were arrested for drunkenness, nearly all 
the arrests being made on Saturday evenings. Out 
of about 500 persons who came from Newburyport 
to Ipswich each week, 200 chose Saturday even¬ 
ings, and this number, together with visitors from 
other no-license places, furnished about 100 drunk¬ 
en, noisy persons who made life uncomfortable and 
the streets unsafe on that night. One Saturday 
afternoon in July, 1907, 200 alighted in Ipswich 
from the 2 p. m. Newburyport train; 287 left for 
home on the midnight train, three-quarters of their 
number intoxicated. They were characterized as 
a “rough crowd who painted the town red/' It 
was charged that the saloon keepers near the sta¬ 
tion kept many of these drunken men in back 
rooms and saw them safely on the train in order 
that they might escape arrest in Ipswich. 

If the arrests per thousand population for 
drunkenness in the no-license cities near Boston 
are compared with the arrests made in Boston of 
residents of those cities, the totals for three cities 
(Cambridge 36.2, Everett 29.2, and Quincy 53.9) 
will exceed the average number of arrests for 
drunkenness in license cities; while the totals for 
three other cities (Malden 24.7, Newton 23.5, and 
Somerville 27.8), will not fall far short. 

* Computed from police records. 

56 


ARRESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS 

The use of statistics of arrests for drunkenness 
as a criterion of sobriety under both license and 
no-license conditions is fraught with grave diffi¬ 
culty, not only because these statistics are subject 
to such a variety of interpretation, but because 
they of themselves do not necessarily reveal the 
truth. Police methods of dealing with intoxicated 
persons vary in the different localities and not in¬ 
frequently change in the same city. Officers 
themselves are unlike in their methods, some being 
more inclined to make arrests than others. In 
some of the no-license communities where the 
kitchen-bar trade flourishes, the actual number of 
persons who under other conditions would be 
liable to arrest for drunkenness is not likely to 
appear in the police returns. In some communi¬ 
ties, too, persons complained that the police were 
more lenient in the matter of arrests in license than 
in no-license years. 

In the smaller places near large no-license cen¬ 
ters, the present tendency is towards no-license. 
In six elections from 1885 to 1895 one or another of 
the towns adjoining Brockton voted license, while 
from 1895 to the present time only one (Avon) 
voted license, and that for one year only. Grove- 
land, adjoining Haverhill, voted for license every 
year from 1901 to 1907 except 1906; but when 
Haverhill, for the first time in ten years, voted 
“no” in the election of December, 1907, Grove- 
land followed suit by voting “no” at its next 
election. When Newburyport had no-license in 
57 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

1907, Ipswich (12 miles distant) had license; but 
when Newburyport voted for another year of 
no-license, Ipswich voted “no” also. The usual 
reason given in these small places for the change 
to no-license is the influx of rough non-residents 
who are attracted by the saloons. 

Residents from no-license cities who resort to 
the large license centers and get arrested for drunk¬ 
enness do not appear to greatly inconvenience their 
hosts, the police authorities, who are usually pos¬ 
sessed of adequate accommodations for intoxi¬ 
cated persons who cannot get home. The police 
authorities of Lynn, however, alleged the influx 
of non-resident drinkers (1103 in 1906, while in 
the nearby license city of Salem 1365 non-resi¬ 
dents were arrested for drunkenness*) as one rea¬ 
son for the change to no-license in May, 1908. 

An incentive to a no-license policy in Ipswich is 
the fact that its foreign population includes 1200 
Poles, many of whom are said to be dangerous 
when intoxicated. A population of 600 Greeks 
in this city furnished not more than six arrests 
during the license year of 1907, while not one 
Italian was arrested for drunkenness in that 
period. Fitchburg was under no-license in 1906 
and Gardner (15 miles distant) under license. 
The next year Gardner changed its policy after 
Fitchburg again had voted no-license. Out of 
301 persons arrested for drunkenness in Gardner 
in 1906 (25 per thousand population), 167* (55.4 per 

* See Table XIV, Appendix B, p. 139. 

58 


ARRESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS 

cent) were non-residents, 64 being from Fitch¬ 
burg. Here, also, drinking by Polish residents 
and the disorderly conduct of non-residents had 
decided the town for no-license. 

From the testimony gathered in the cities 
visited and their adjoining towns, it appears that 
the persons who drink to excess and get arrested 
constitute, on the whole, a rough class, many of 
them common laborers, and that their drinking 
is heavier on Saturday nights than during the rest 
of the week. The resulting disorder on the streets, 
together with the inadequacy of the police force 
and jail accommodations in the smaller license 
towns, make for a change to no-license. 

In Haverhill, aside from a combination of events 
affecting a few individuals, the change to no¬ 
license came through the general disregard shown 
by most holders of liquor licenses for the regula¬ 
tions of such licenses. This was the explanation 
offered both by the license and no-license people 
interviewed. The special evil which aroused most 
of the citizens was the combination of prostitu¬ 
tion and drunkenness permitted on licensed prem¬ 
ises. The proportion of women among the patrons 
of saloons was said to have risen from one in 
12 in 1905 to one in nine in 1907. Counts 
were made by citizens of the number of women 
going into saloons in 1907, prior to election. One 
reported 45 in one hour and another 65. The 
police took numbers of young girls out of licensed 
places, sometimes a dozen at a time. The side 
59 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

doors and separate rooms provided insured privacy, 
and in some places prostitutes, with the knowledge 
of the proprietors, were allowed to stay on the 
premises to drink with men. Hotels having licenses 
were also said to harbor immoral people. Law¬ 
lessness of every sort and degree was charged 
upon license holders by believers in license and 
no-license alike, many alleging that the saloons 
by mixing in politics caused those charged with 
enforcing the law to become lax. 

In the year ending September 30, 1907 (license), 
136, or 10.3 per cent of those arrested for drunken¬ 
ness in Haverhill were women.* The number of 
arrests recorded does not tell the whole story, 
however, as many young girls taken out of saloons 
by the police during license years were not placed 
under arrest. In the four months after the no¬ 
license vote was cast, but before it went into effect 
(January 1 to May 1, 1908), not one of the 27 
women arrested was under thirty years of age. 
Table XVI f shows that in 1907 the arrests of 
women for drunkenness in no-license cities consti¬ 
tuted 5 per cent of the total number of arrests 
for this cause; while in license cities the ratio 
rose to 6.9 per cent. 

In the cities of Brockton, Fitchburg, Newbury- 
port, Salem, and Waltham, 11 police officials, 
five probation officers, five judges, and two clerks 


* Thirty out of 136 were between twenty and thirty years of age; 
eight were under twenty, 
f Appendix B, page 141. 


60 


ARRESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS 

of police courts, a total of 23 persons who were 
familiar with those dealt with by the courts, were 
interviewed. The tendency among this group of 
officials was to regard no-license as a preventive 
measure, the belief being that the more hopeful 
part of the community, the young and those with 
no special liking or craving for liquor, were kept 
from drinking or led to drink more moderately 
when the constant public invitation of the saloon 
was removed. In Brockton, one official said that 
the liquor used in no-license years was more 
harmful than that supplied by the saloons; that 
no-license was the best preventive measure for 
the young, but a poor policy to live under for 
those who were addicted to drink and who were 
too poor to buy a good grade of liquor in bulk. 
He thought that many persons used alcohol who 
would buy beer part of the time if it could be 
obtained by the glass or single bottle in a no¬ 
license place. 

In Fitchburg, two officials expressed practically 
the same opinion, adding that if the saloon keepers 
observed the law in every particular, the license 
system would be far better for the city as a whole 
than no-license. As things were, they preferred 
no-license. 

The difference of opinion as to the best liquor 
policy to pursue (aside from self-interest) arises 
to some extent from the belief of some persons 
that, although arrests for drunkenness in a city 
drop off noticeably under no-license, drinking 
61 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

continues; and that those who formerly drank in 
the saloons and were seen intoxicated about the 
streets, either go to license cities nearby or buy 
liquor by the bottle and drink it in their homes or 
in the outskirts of the town, where they escape 
arrest. Many persons, therefore, vote no-license 
not because it stops intemperance, but merely as 
a matter of expediency, believing that the policy 
will at least serve to banish drunkenness to a 
distance. This class of voters often holds the 
balance of power in a city, and is easily brought 
back into the license ranks if offended by signs of 
drunkenness on the streets in no-license years, by 
too rigid restrictions upon importations of liquor 
for private use, or when no-license enforcement is 
a visible force and becomes a factor in local politics. 


62 


VIII 

THE IMPORTATION OF LIQUOR INTO 
NO-LICENSE CITIES 



CHAPTER VIII 


THE IMPORTATION OF LIQUOR INTO 
NO-LICENSE CITIES 

~ the present time the policy of no-license 



cities in regard to the transportation of 


* ^ liquor depends largely upon the attitude 

of the aldermen or selectmen in granting or with¬ 
holding transportation permits to certain carriers, 
and their attitude is generally dictated by the in¬ 
tention of a majority of those who declare for no¬ 
license. If the voters hold that the most im¬ 
portant step toward temperance is to stop the open 
sale of liquor in the city, they may deem it ex¬ 
pedient to avail themselves of the provisions of 
the law in regard to the delivery to citizens of 
liquor purchased outside.* The no-license voters 
who take this stand represent all shades of theory 
and practice. The prohibitionist may withhold 
objection to transportation permits for the sake 
of keeping within the no-license ranks the man 
who wants to obtain his liquor without let or hin¬ 
drance, but who does not care to live and bring up 
his children where the results of drunkenness are 
to be seen in public places. On the other hand, 

* See Appendix A, pp. 124 and 125. Summary of Laws. (Laws 
of 1897, ch. 2 7L 19°6> ch. 421, and 1907, ch. 517). 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

many persons believe that to legalize the importa¬ 
tion of liquor into no-license territory is nearly as 
unwise as to legalize its open sale within the city, 
and that the gain for temperance is in proportion 
to the difficulty attending the delivery of liquor 
to the citizens. 

Prior to 1906, no permits were required for the 
transportation of liquor into no-license cities, and 
the only limitation imposed was the Act of 1897,* 
which gave the right to transport liquor into such 
places to railroads and general expresses exclu¬ 
sively. As a result, a large number of persons 
possessing little besides a horse and wagon, or¬ 
ganized corporations with a capital stock of 
$10,000 or more, ostensibly for the purpose of 
carrying on an express business, but in reality to 
transport liquor from license to no-license places. 
Many of them illegally stored liquor in convenient 
places and sold it to any customer who happened 
along. The result was that, except for the liquor 
lost by occasional seizures, nearly as much was 
imported as in license years. 

In 1906 the so-called “pony express” billwas 
passed which required all who engaged in the trans¬ 
portation of liquor (except railroad and street rail¬ 
way corporations) to first procure permits from the 
no-license city in which they were doing business. 
No restrictions were imposed as to the kind of 
persons who might apply for such licenses, and 

* See Appendix A, p. 124. (Laws of 1897, ch. 271). 
t See Appendix A, p. 125. (Laws of 1906, ch. 421). 

66 


IMPORTATION OF LIQUOR INTO NO-LICENSE CITIES 

although the aldermen might limit their number, 
they could not demand that applicants be engaged 
in a bona fide express business. As a result, 
many of the expresses licensed under this act 
were run solely for the purpose of transporting 
liquor, and trouble was still experienced from their 
propensity to store it and sell it to others than al¬ 
leged consignees. The legislature of 1907* at¬ 
tempted to remedy the situation by providing 
that permits should be given to “persons or cor¬ 
porations regularly and lawfully conducting a 
general express business/' The question of the 
final interpretation of the term “general express 
business" remains to be finally settled by the 
courts of last resort.f 

The railroads and street railway corporations 
have had and now have the right to carry liquor 
into a no-license place without permits, the only 
important restriction being that the goods must 
be marked so that their nature may be known.J 
There is, therefore, no check or limitation upon 
the transportation of liquor into a city by train 
or trolley expresses. The important question 
concerns its delivery at the place of residence or 
business of the consignee. Let us see what part 

* Appendix A, p. 125. (Laws of 1907, ch. 517.) 

f See Commonwealth v. Peoples' Express Co. 201 Mass. 564 (1909), 
construing the term “general express business" and dealing with 
the whole question of the transportation of liquor into no-license 
communities. 

X If the liquor is shipped from outside the state it need not be 
marked as to contents, and its nature is not disclosed, except in 
case of barrels and other casings bearing United States Internal 
Revenue marks. 

67 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

the expressman with the horse and wagon plays 
in this delivery, the full extent of his privileges 
under his permit, and how liquor is put into 
possession of the consignee when no transportation 
permits are granted. 

If the goods are brought over the railroad by an 
express company having express privileges on the 
trains, such as the American Express, the company 
completes its deliveries with its own teams, pro¬ 
vided the aldermen vote to give transportation 
permits for liquor. If no transportation permits 
are given, it is the policy of such express companies 
not to handle consignments of liquor to no-license 
places from points within the state. If the liquor is 
shipped from without the state, however, it is held 
not to come within the jurisdiction of the local 
authorities, and the express carrying it may com¬ 
plete the delivery without a permit. In theory it 
is a matter of uninterrupted inter-state traffic.* 

When the liquor is not ordered through or 
consigned for delivery to express companies hav¬ 
ing privileges on the railroads the case is different. 
The liquor is then shipped by freight into the no¬ 
license place and its delivery is completed by 
another agency than the freight department of 
the railroad, as the latter does not deliver at the 
door. The transit is broken. In theory, there¬ 
fore, even if the liquor comes by freight from with¬ 
out the state, no expressman without a permit can 

* Even though a connecting carrier is employed within the no¬ 
license town, the transaction is inter-state, if such carrier is an agent 
of the sender. 


68 


IMPORTATION OF LIQUOR INTO NO-LICENSE CITIES 

take it from the freight shed and deliver it to the 
customer, for the inter-state nature of the trans¬ 
action ended with its arrival at the freight office 
in the no-license city.* Therefore, when no per¬ 
mits are granted, liquor coming in by freight must 
be called for personally by the consignee and taken 
away by him, as no one has any right to cart it for 
him for hire. 

The method of getting liquor by freight through 
a local expressman having a permit is a little 
cheaper than the method of inter-state express, 
and no charge is made for returning bottles. An 
additional convenience for would-be customers is 
that a permit allows any local expressman holding 
one to take a customer’s order for liquor and fill it, 
either by sending word to a liquor dealer and hav¬ 
ing it sent out by freight consigned to him, or by 
calling personally for the liquor, and carting it 
from seller to purchaser. When no permits are 
given, the customer must transact the business 
himself by sending an order to the dealer and giv¬ 
ing directions for delivery, a process which is in¬ 
convenient for many and often impracticable for 
the illiterate. 

In one no-license cityf where no permits were 

* Commerce between the states is regulated by Congress. (United 
States Constitution, Article I, section 8.) The so-called “Wilson 
Bill” passed by Congress May 8, 1890, provides that liquor shipped 
from one state to another becomes subject to the police powers of a 
state when it crosses the boundary into that state and is not exempt 
by reason of being in the original package. 

f As the course described is illegal and the information was given 
in confidence, the name of the city is withheld. 

69 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

granted, local expresses called at the freight office 
for liquor and delivered it to the customer. The 
theory in this case was that when the customer 
signed the freight receipt in person, the liquor was 
put into his possession and the delivery to him was 
complete. When he called a local expressman to 
cart the liquor to his address, such expressman 
simply acted as his agent and not as a common 
carrier; in short, the customer hired the team for 
the time being. In this city, a great deal of liquor 
came in by freight and was delivered in this way, 
although the authorities avowed that such a prac¬ 
tice would be challenged if discovered. 

In another city, Fitchburg, in which no per¬ 
mits were granted, a person getting liquor by 
freight was obliged personally to take his liquor 
from the freight office, and if the quantity were too 
large to carry, he was obliged to control and drive 
the team which conveyed it to its final destina¬ 
tion. As a result, where no transportation per¬ 
mits are given, the larger part of the liquor comes 
in by express from outside the state, and in places 
giving permits the larger part is shipped by freight 
from within the state and delivered by local ex¬ 
presses. If a place giving permits is near a 
license city, many of the local expresses bring it 
over the road by means of teams. No account 
can be taken of liquor brought into no-license 
cities by purchasers themselves, presumably for 
their own consumption, in packages and in hand 
70 


IMPORTATION OF LIQUOR INTO NO-LICENSE CITIES 

baggage; of inter-state shipments of liquor; or of 
liquor sent in unmarked packages. 

The United States Internal Revenue Report for 
1905 shows the estimated yearly per capita con¬ 
sumption of all liquors in the United States to have 
been 20.38 gallons, and of beer 18.50 gallons. 
Upon this basis, the approximate number of 
barrels of beer which should have been consumed 
each week in the year 1905, by the five cities 
studied, assuming their consumption to equal the 
average, is estimated as follows: Brockton, 607; 
Fitchburg, 420; Newburyport, 186; Salem, 477; 
Waltham, 335. 

In this connection, an effort was made to ascer¬ 
tain the amount of liquor shipped into these cities 
during no-license years. In Waltham (10 miles 
from Boston), 13 transportation permits were 
issued in 1907 and 1908. As a result of an in¬ 
vestigation through reliable sources of informa¬ 
tion* it is safe to say that on an average 100 
barrels of ale, beer and porter, largely in case and 
keg lots, come in each week by freight, express 
and licensed teams. In a week before a holiday 
in warm weather, the quantity rises to 150 barrels 
or more, while during an ordinary week in cold 
weather, the amount drops below 100 barrels, even 
as low as 75 barrels. Estimating a barrel at 28 
gallons, the yearly average per capita importa¬ 
tion equals 5.5 gallons. This, of course, is ex¬ 
clusive of liquor brought in by private individuals 

* Police authorities, freight and express agencies. 

7 1 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

for home consumption, or transported into the 
city illegally. Nearly all the spirituous liquor 
reaching Waltham is carried in by purchasers 
themselves in bottles and jugs. There is no uni¬ 
formity in the size and shape of the packages of 
such liquor brought in by freight and express, so 
that the quantity cannot be estimated, but on an 
average about 20 packages per week are known to 
come in by this means. Very little alcohol is 
brought into the city, so far as the authorities 
know. 

During June and July, 1907, the amount of 
liquor shipped from within the state to Brockton 
(20 miles from Boston), where eight expressmen 
have permits, averaged 175 barrels per week, 
equalling 5.3 gallons per inhabitant for the year. 
There remain to be accounted for the inter-state 
shipments of liquor by railroad and trolley ex¬ 
press which are not under local regulation. State¬ 
ments of the amount of such shipments could not 
be obtained, though it is said to be large. During 
June and July, 1907, an average of 45 packages 
of spirituous liquor per week was received by 
rail from within the state. 

No accurate figures could be obtained for Salem 
subsequent to 1905. No transportation permits 
were issued in 1907. Private clubs were said to 
have brought in an aggregate equal to 10 barrels 
of beer, in cases, each week during 1907, most of 
it having come over the road from Lynn, by means 
of teams, and in suit cases. In May, 1908, about 1 o 
* 72 


IMPORTATION OF LIQUOR INTO NO-LICENSE CITIES 

barrels per week came by freight from within the 
state. The remainder was brought in by express 
from without the state. The amount of it was said 
to be not less than that which came from within the 
state in 1905, but accurate figures could not be 
obtained. In 1905, about 40 pony expresses were 
running (no permits being required). These teams 
brought in a great deal of liquor over the road from 
Lynn, of which no record could be obtained. 
The amount brought into the city by rail, from 
within the state, amounted in May, 1905, to about 
135 barrels per week, or 5.2 gallons per capita for 
the year. 

In Fitchburg (about 45 miles from Boston), in 
1907 (no permits being issued), about 75 barrels of 
beer and ale per week came by rail from within the 
state, which amounts to about 3.3 gallons per 
inhabitant per year. This liquor had to be called 
for by the purchaser and, if too bulky to carry, was 
carted by him to his address. To escape the in¬ 
convenience of this arrangement, the greater part 
of the liquor sent to Fitchburg was imported by 
express from outside the state, unmarked, and 
was delivered to the consignee's address as an in¬ 
ter-state article. The amount, consequently, could 
not be traced. 

Newburyport (about 36 miles from Boston) gave 
no transportation permits during 1907. The 
figures of the total liquor receipts, both inter¬ 
state and intra-state, purport to show that 43 
barrels of ale and beer were received during one 
73 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

week (4.5 gallons per inhabitant per year).* 
These figures are believed to be too small. In one 
week early in the spring of 1908, about 175 pack¬ 
ages of spirituous liquor were reported to have 
been received by express from outside the state. 

In Brockton and Waltham it was the belief 
that some expressmen brought in more liquor than 
had been ordered, marking the surplus with the 
names of their friends, who would stand by them 
in case the police made trouble, and declare that 
they had ordered the goods. This surplus could 
be disposed of to people who were keeping kitchen 
bar-rooms. In Waltham, complaint was made 
of several “ speak easies” which obtained their 
supply within 15 minutes after telephoning to 
an express. Opinion seemed to be divided in 
these cities as to the number of transportation 
permits which should be issued. Some thought 
that 14 in a city of 26,282 people (Waltham) was 
far too large and that about half the number could 
easily handle all bona fide orders. Others be¬ 
lieved that to allow a liberal number of expresses 
tended to keep the traffic from becoming profitable 
to a few. They argued that to grant a few men a 
practical monopoly of the business would cause 
dissatisfaction among many citizens and bring the 
permit system into disrepute. 

In Brockton the principal reason given for is¬ 
suing permits was that people were more likely 

* Week ending May 20, 1908, 12 barrels from within the state and 
31 from New Hampshire. 


74 


IMPORTATION OF LIQUOR INTO NO-LICENSE CITIES 

to drink beer if they could order it freely, while if 
ordering and delivery were made difficult, they 
would drink more whiskey and alcohol, which can 
be more easily transported by the illegal carrier or 
by the purchaser himself. 

In Newburyport, Salem and Fitchburg, the 
principal reason given for withholding transporta¬ 
tion permits was that under such permits express- 
men brought in more liquor than was ordered, and 
that the absence of permits confined the traffic to 
bona fide orders, as it forced people to order di¬ 
rectly from the dealer. 

Fitchburg, where in 1907 the transportation law 
was practically carried out to the letter, and where 
receipts were largely limited to inter-state and 
intra-state shipments which stopped at the con¬ 
fines of the freight shed awaiting the call of the 
purchaser, contained a larger number of druggists * 
than the other cities visited. Complaints were 
made of business done by them. 

The statement was often heard in these no¬ 
license cities that citizens had voted not to have 
liquor sold within their limits and that anyone 
who wanted liquor should therefore be obliged to 
go elsewhere to drink or order the goods sent to 
him. But the man who wants a drink and will 
have one cannot always afford to pay the larger 
amount required to buy an original package of 
liquor, and if far from a license city, he will 
naturally turn to any place in town where he can 

* See Appendix B, Table XVII, p. 142. 

75 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

get a single drink or a small quantity of alcohol. 
In Fitchburg there were said to be about ioo 
kitchen bar-rooms to which a man could resort. 
In both Fitchburg and Brockton, cities too far 
from license centers for frequent visits, the alcohol 
drinkers, as a rule, were from the humbler class 
in the community. They could buy alcohol in 
small quantities from the druggists and mix it 
with water. This drink (called “ splits” or 
“stretch”) was much cheaper than whiskey. 

Many believe that it is inconsistent to vote 
“no” and at the same time advocate transporta¬ 
tion permits, because it enables the person of 
means to have liquor sent to his home, while his 
poor neighbor is denied the privilege on account of 
his inability to purchase in quantities. On the 
other hand, without transportation permits, the 
well-to-do person by ordering from outside of the 
state (which involves a little more trouble and ex¬ 
pense than to give an order to the local express) 
may still have his liquor delivered at his door, while 
the poor man, if far from a license center, will 
turn naturally to places within the city where he 
at least can procure small quantities of alcohol or 
spirits. The liberal no-license people believe that 
to grant the permits serves to keep a city in the 
no-license column, and cite Brockton and Waltham, 
which under this policy of compromise remain 
no-license. 

Fitchburg, after rigidly enforcing for a year 
the law relating to transportation, while permitting 
76 


IMPORTATION OF LIQUOR INTO NO-LICENSE CITIES 

such free sale by the druggists who paid no fees 
that many were led to regret the loss of revenue 
from the licensed traffic, changed to license in the 
election of 1907. In Salem no transportation 
permits were granted in 1907. A city marshal 
was appointed who endeavored to suppress illegal 
importation and sale, and is said to have suc¬ 
ceeded so well that a reaction set in, resulting in a 
change in the personnel of the city officials at the 
election of that year. This marshal was not re¬ 
appointed by the new mayor, and the aldermen 
voted to grant sixth class licenses and transporta¬ 
tion permits. The election was won by people 
who wanted no-license but with the privilege of 
getting liquor easily. 

Some of the advocates of no-license seemed to 
think that the cause of temperance would be ad¬ 
vanced if the railroads and other inter-state 
carriers were forbidden to transport liquor into 
no-license territory. The results of such a meas¬ 
ure, if passed, belong to the realm of speculation 
and cannot properly be discussed here. 

The hostile attitude of the brewing associations 
towards no-license is cited by some persons to 
show that less liquor is drunk under no-license 
than under license. The desire of the brewers to 
stem the tide of no-license was brought promi¬ 
nently to public notice in the reports of their con¬ 
vention held in Milwaukee in 1908. Brewers were 
urged to use every effort to have the saloon keepers 
observe the law, especially that part of it which 
77 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

prohibits the sale of liquor to intoxicated persons 
and minors. In the last election in Fitchburg, the 
Worcester County Brewers issued a pamphlet 
purporting to come from certain public-spirited 
young men in the city which set forth the public 
improvements in a certain license city alleged to 
have been paid for by its license fees. While 
such activity on the part of local brewers who 
supply the saloons in their vicinity might be 
taken as an indication that their business suffers 
to some extent in no-license years, the so-called 
“shipping” brewers, or large producers, who do 
not control local saloons, are said not to be espe¬ 
cially affected by changes in local license policies. 
To state, without qualification, that hostility on 
the part of the brewers indicates a diminished 
consumption of beer under no-license conditions 
is, therefore, hardly exact. 


78 


IX 

SALES BY DRUGGISTS 







CHAPTER IX 
SALES BY DRUGGISTS 


HE number of druggists* permitted to sell 



liquor in no-license places (0.5 per thousand 


A inhabitants) is 25 per cent larger than the 
number in license places (0.4 per thousand), and 
the larger ratio in no-license communities of this 
class of merchants who, to the exclusion of all 
others, are authorized to sell liquor under the 
protection of the law, can hardly be accounted 
for on the score of a lower state of health in such 
communities. 

The druggists in the cities of Brockton, New- 
buryport, Salem and Waltham, in 1907 (no¬ 
license), had certificates of fitness from the State 
Board of Pharmacy, which allowed them to sell 
liquor upon the prescription of a physician only 
(or alcohol upon signature of customer), such 
prescriptions to be filed and exhibited to the 
proper authorities, on demand. The fee for such 
a certificate is $1.00, payable to the state. The 
druggists in Fitchburg had such permits in 1906 
(no-license), but in 1907 (no-license), were given 
sixth class f licenses by the aldermen, which pro- 

* See Appendix B, Table XVII, p. 142. 

f Appendix A, Summary of Laws. (Laws of 1888, ch. 340.) 


6 


81 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

vide for the sale of liquor (including alcohol) for 
medicinal, mechanical, and chemical purposes, all 
sales to be entered in a book and signed for by the 
purchaser. 

In Brockton no count or estimate could be ob¬ 
tained of the number of sales of liquor or alcohol 
by druggists in any given period. An instance 
was cited of a druggist who accounted on his 
books for only one barrel of alcohol out of a total 
of eight barrels purchased by him. Another 
druggist had a barrel of alcohol consigned to him 
as "licorice/’ 

The consumption of alcohol as a beverage in 
Brockton seems to be largely limited to the so- 
called "stretch gang,” consisting of confirmed 
drinkers who find a pint of alcohol, diluted to about 
one-half its strength, a cheap and readily obtained 
substitute for the whiskey of the saloon. The 
"stretch gang” proper, numbers about 50 who 
imbibe deeply in the brief space of time between 
sentences to the State Farm and other institu¬ 
tions. About 150 others are slightly more self- 
respecting than the former class, and while most 
of them are known to use alcohol, do not spend 
much time in public institutions. The druggists 
sell very little liquor on doctors’ prescriptions. 
Most sell freely, without prescriptions and therefore 
illegally, to persons known to them as "safe,” but 
refuse to serve outsiders, even though introduced 
by friends. Out of 28 druggists, 24 were said not 
to wholly observe the conditions of their permits. 

82 


SALES BY DRUGGISTS 

An estimate of sales of liquor in Salem in 1907, 
under 25 state druggists' certificates, placed the 
total number at about 200 per day. On May 1, 
1908 (the beginning of a second no-license year), 
Salem issued sixth class licenses to druggists. 
No statistics were obtainable as to sales under the 
latter, but the opinion that they were large, and 
that some of the druggists depended almost 
wholly upon such sales for a livelihood, was 
freely expressed. 

Two stores kept by “ druggists ” of this class were 
visited, and a five minutes' stay in each revealed 
a rather scanty supply of the articles usually dis¬ 
played in such places. In one of these stores, 
having three wall spaces and four glass cases, two 
cases, and one-half of a side wall space were used 
for cigars, an entire wall was given over to a 
soda fountain, one-half of another wall and one 
glass case contained a small supply of a particular 
brand of patent medicine arranged with wide 
spaces between the packages; a fourth counter 
held whisk brooms and sundry other articles, in¬ 
cluding picture postal cards, while on the shelves 
of the third wall space were a few glass jars of 
uniform size, bearing names of drugs. The back 
room seemed to be the center of interest to cus¬ 
tomers during the period of this visit. Male 
voices were heard issuing from it. The clerk 
remained in the back room except for the moment 
when he drew the beverage which formed the in¬ 
vestigator's excuse for a brief stay; a man who 

83 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

helped himself at the fountain to two fingers of 
liquid disappeared within its shelter and two other 
men entered the store and joined the inner circle. 

The second store was better equipped with 
articles considered appropriate to drug stores. 
The attention and time of one clerk, however, 
seemed to be divided between the back room and 
the store, in the effort to do his duty to the owners 
of the voices in the rear and to any who might 
pause in the outer room. 

Most of the other drug stores presented a more 
nearly normal appearance as to stock and fixtures, 
but it seemed to be the general opinion that a 
large proportion of them would go out of business 
but for the sales of liquor, and that no check of 
any kind has been placed upon this trade since the 
issuance of sixth class licenses. 

In Waltham, during the five months or 22 
weeks (no-license), from June 10 to November 10, 
1907, nine druggists entered upon their books a 
total of 224 sales of liquor on prescription, an 
average of about 10 sales per week, ranging from 
an average of two sales per month by one druggist 
to 11 per month by another. This was said to be 
but a small portion of the actual sales, though it 
was fairly well agreed that the total amount sold 
was not abnormally large and that with some 
exceptions the druggists were disposed to conform 
to the law. The opinion of most persons was that 
little alcohol was sold. 

In Fitchburg, under no-license, the druggists 
84 


SALES BY DRUGGISTS 


were popularly regarded as liquor dealers doing 
business under a dollar license, and this belief, 
whether well founded or not, helped to gain the 
city for license, by enlisting the votes of persons 
who feel that if liquor is to be sold freely in the 
city, the city should have proper revenue from 
such sale. During the 145 days or 20 weeks and 
five days of no-license from May 1 to September 23, 
1907,26 Fitchburg druggists admitted having made 
a total of 21,619 liquor sales, an average of 1043 per 
week, or 149 per day. The number ranged from 
1.8 sales per day by one druggist to 18.9 per day 
by another. These were sales under sixth class 
licenses which were signed for by customers. 
Well-informed persons believed that they formed 
but a small part of the actual sales made. The 
amounts of liquor known to have been received by 
individual druggists in the past seem to reinforce 
the belief that a great deal of liquor is sold by some 
of them. In 1904 (no-license), 500 gallons, or 
4000 pints, of liquor were found on the premises of 
one druggist at one time. In the last part of the 
same no-license year (early in 1905), 60 gallons, 
or 480 pints, of liquor were sent to a druggist in 
one shipment, and one week later the same drug¬ 
gist received 20 gallons, or 160 pints. In 1908, 
a conviction was secured of a professional “ runner” 
who served as agent to procure liquor from drug¬ 
gists for a number of persons of such disreputable 
character that it was inexpedient for them to call 
at the store in person. 


8 5 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

In Newbury port, which changed from license 
to no-license on May i, 1907, the amount of liquor 
sold by druggists was said to be not unusually 
large, but no figures could be obtained. On the 
other hand, the sales of alcohol under the state 
certificates, which were obtained for the seven 
no-license months May 1 to December 1, 1907, 
were significant. They showed that seven out of 
10 druggists made 6000 sales between the dates 
mentioned, or an average of 28.6 sales per day. 
Six out of these seven druggists made 2000 sales, 
while the seventh made 4000 sales. The sales of 
this one druggist increased regularly from May 1, 
amounting to 1000 in November, 1907. During 
the last month three persons purchased a pint of 
alcohol once every day, and one purchased a pint 
three times in one day. 

The cities making most complaint against 
druggists, Newburyport, Salem, and Fitchburg, 
issue no transportation permits, while Brockton, 
which gives such permits, made less complaint 
against them. Waltham, whose druggists were 
said to observe the law fairly well, grants trans¬ 
portation permits, and is, furthermore, within 
half an hour’s ride by electrics of Brighton, which 
is an outlying district of Boston and under license. 

The consensus of opinion in these five cities 
seemed to be that less liquor is sold under the 
State Board of Pharmacy permits than under sixth 
class licenses. The reason advanced for this is 
that sixth class licenses are issued by vote of the 
86 


SALES BY DRUGGISTS 

aldermen and that business is subject to less 
scrutiny, as local politics are often involved in the 
matter. The average police department largely 
reflects the attitude of the legislative officials. 
The state permits take the question of drug stores 
out of city politics by making them subject to 
supervision by the state; and although the local 
police are charged with enforcing the law, they 
then are not so much handicapped by political 
considerations. This is illustrated by the case 
of Salem. In 1907, under the state permits, with 
a marshal who enforced the law, drug stores were 
watched and closed up if caught making illegal 
sales. In 1908, a complete change of policy, as 
has been stated, took place; the aldermen granted 
sixth class licenses and the general opinion is that 
the druggists are now to be let alone. 

The law provides that a physician's prescription 
must accompany every purchase made under the 
State Board of Pharmacy permit. A comparison 
of the prescriptions for a given period with the 
amount of liquor received and on hand would 
seem to afford some proof whether or not the law 
is observed. But the law is too easily evaded. 
The druggist may call upon one or more compliant 
physicians to supply prescriptions, or he may have 
liquor sent to him from outside the state, in which 
case the liquor is not required to be marked, or he 
may receive liquor concealed or wrongly marked, 
so that the amount he receives between given 
dates cannot be ascertained. 

87 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

The sixth class licenses provide for the pur¬ 
chaser’s signature to the statement that the 
liquor or alcohol is intended for certain lawful 
uses. It is a simpler matter for the customer to 
sign a book than to come armed with a pre¬ 
scription, and doubtless many occasional cus¬ 
tomers will purchase liquor from a druggist 
holding a sixth class license who would rather go 
without than incur the trouble and expense of get¬ 
ting a prescription in case it should be called for. 
The druggists usually demand that persons un¬ 
known to them comply with the law, as such persons 
are not considered “safe.” This state of affairs 
accounts for the complaint often heard that under 
the state permits only the old drinkers (who are 
known to the druggists) can get liquor, while re¬ 
spectable persons who want a small quantity for 
medicinal use cannot buy it. 

The sixth class license restriction is evaded 
where it is thought worth the trouble, by selling 
to persons who do not sign the book of liquor 
sales. By the purchase of liquor which is un¬ 
lawfully marked or lawfully without mark, the 
druggist is able to keep on hand more liquor than 
his sales account for, and thus to disregard the 
rule requiring the customer’s signature. 

The opinion was widespread that the law allows 
druggists too much latitude in regard to the 
quantity of liquor which may be kept for sale. 
There is practically no limit except that fixed by 
the discretion of the court, and police officers 


SALES BY DRUGGISTS 

hesitate to act unless their duty is clearly defined 
by law. The claim is made that if all liquor and 
alcohol above a certain amount could be seized 
as contraband, the sales would be more nearly 
limited to customers who purchase in good faith 
according to the legal requirements. As matters 
now stand, the sales of liquor are said to be large 
under the state permits, still larger under the sixth 
class licenses, and in most of the cities in addition 
many sales of alcohol are made.* The illegal 
sales are believed to form a major part of total 
sales and the general conclusion has been reached 
by many that the smaller the total sales, the 
fewer will the illegal ones be. But with the ex¬ 
ception of the few figures presented, there is little 
tangible evidence in regard to the whole subject 
of druggists' sales. 

* Many complaints were heard in Brockton, Fitchburg, New- 
buryport, and Salem, in regard to the sale of certain patent medi¬ 
cines and preparations containing alcohol and inhibiting drugs. 
In Fitchburg, many of the Finlanders were said to use a compound 
of alcohol and ether. In all four cities, mention was made of large 
sales of Jamaica ginger and similar substitutes for liquor, but nothing 
definite could be learned in regard to the amount sold in the different 
cities. 


89 



X 


ENFORCEMENT OF THE NO-LICENSE LAW 





CHAPTER X 


ENFORCEMENT OF THE NO-LICENSE LAW 
NE of the most important phases of this 



whole question is the matter of enforce- 


% ' ment of the law, for upon this point hinges 
oftentimes the adoption or discontinuance of the 
no-license policy. That the law does away with 
licensed places where one may drink openly is 
obviously not enough. The question is largely 
whether illegal selling will be reported. 

The statistics of arrests for violation of the 
liquor laws reveal nothing more than that the 
number of such violations is greater in no-license 
than in license years in the same city. The arrests 
for this cause in no-license years in different cities 
vary considerably. Whether this variation indi¬ 
cates a larger total number of violations of the 
law in some places than in others, or greater ac¬ 
tivity in searching out and apprehending offenders, 
cannot be determined from the returns. It is 
significant, however, that the no-license cities 
having the largest ratio of arrests for this class of 
offenses are, as a rule, farther away from a license 
city than aie those having a smaller ratio.* The 


* See Appendix B, Table XVI 11 , page 143. 
93 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

cities of Beverly, Brockton, Fitchburg, Newbury- 
port, Quincy, Salem and Waltham arrested from 
.65 to 3.10 persons per thousand inhabitants for 
this cause in 1907, while the remaining no-license 
cities, all suburbs of Boston, arrested from .05 to 
.48 persons per thousand population. 

On the question of enforcement, the number of 
arrests for drunkenness in no-license cities, dis¬ 
cussed in an earlier chapter (Chapter VII), is 
significant.* 

An indication of illegal selling that cannot be 
controverted is the number of persons paying the 
Internal Revenue tax who are not licensed to sell 
liquor by the local or state authorities.! This 
tax, imposed by the federal government upon all 
who are known by their agents to make sales of 
liquor, confers no license to sell. A comparison, 
therefore, of the number of persons making such 
payments with the number of druggists having 
authority to sell will furnish one with an estimate 
of the number who are known to sell illegally. 
Here, again, most of the cities which are not con¬ 
veniently situated with reference to a license 
center lead in the number of unlicensed persons 
who pay the tax. In 1907, Beverly had 21 such 
persons, Salem 14, Newburyport 11, and Fitch¬ 
burg 10. Many of these taxes are paid by clubs 
and associations which thereby admit making 
illegal sales, though the liquor delivered to them is 

* See Appendix B, Table XIII, page 138. 
j Appendix B, Table XVIII, page 143. 

94 


ENFORCEMENT OF THE NO-LICENSE LAW 

supposed to be purchased by members for their 
own use. Brockton has only one unlicensed 
person paying such a tax. This city leads in the 
ratio of prosecutions for violation of the law. The 
small no-license cities near Boston have, as a rule, 
but few unlicensed persons paying the tax, the 
number ranging from none in Medford to 11 in 
Malden. Chelsea, in its no-license year, 1907, had 
22 persons (without license to sell) who paid the 
tax. 

The question of the effect of enforcement of the 
no-license law upon the continuance of the policy 
and upon local politics and public life is more 
complex than is at first realized. The persons who 
believe that it is morally wrong to license the sale 
of liquor are anxious to have the no-license law 
enforced strictly and usually do not change their 
opinion. This class does not comprise the majority 
of voters in any community. In the residential 
cities within easy access of Boston this class is 
reinforced by a large number of persons who favor 
no-license simply because they consider that the 
nearby license center furnishes sufficient ac¬ 
commodations for drinking, and that it is both 
inexpedient and unnecessary to have saloons any 
nearer their homes. These residential suburbs 
present a simpler problem of enforcement, as 
Boston acts as a safety valve to the greater number 
of those who cannot control the desire to drink. 

In cities which have not cheap and easy ac¬ 
cess to a license center, we have a more difficult 
95 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

problem. In such places, the small minority who 
believe in total abstinence are the only ones who 
can with certainty be counted on to vote no¬ 
license, unless the city is partly residential, like 
/ Brockton, and supports a no-license policy for this 
reason. The deciding factor which keeps this 
city in the no-license column is undoubtedly a 
liberal policy in the matter of transportation 
permits, so that enforcement of the law is possible 
without cutting off a reasonable supply of liquor. 
In the three other cities (Fitchburg, Newburyport 
and Salem) having occasional years of no-license, 
which are more than 15 miles from Boston and not 
conveniently located with reference to a license cen¬ 
ter, a literal enforcement of the regulations usually 
adopted in no-license years would practically cut 
off the liquor supply except that sold by druggists 
for medicinal purposes, and that shipped from 
outside the state. Enforcement of such regula¬ 
tions is well-nigh impossible and the pernicious 
effect of non-enforcement is more or less observable 
in these places. 

A good illustration is furnished by Salem. 
Reliable persons state that during no-license years 
in that city there are commonly charges of illicit 
dealers being shielded by officials and of lack of 
serious attempts at enforcement. Equally good 
authorities assert that the fluctuations in Salem 
from license to no-license and back again do not 
really reflect a change in the sentiment of a major¬ 
ity of its voters, but merely the manoeuvres of 
96 


ENFORCEMENT OF THE NO-LICENSE LAW 

those who fight among themselves for the control 
of liquor privileges. This battle of the “ins” and 
“outs” is further illustrated by the change of 
Haverhill in 1908 to no-license. In that city, 
both sides admitted that the licensed dealers 
formed a ring which aspired to control local 
politics, and that the no-license majority vote was 
a “rebuke” administered not only by sincere be¬ 
lievers in a no-license policy, but by those who ob¬ 
jected to the ascendancy of the saloon keepers in 
general and of certain individuals among them in 
particular. 

We are led to conclude that one of the most 
serious aspects of temperance legislation is the 
question of its enforcibility and the certainty that 
when not enforced it will prove a corrupting 
factor in public life; and, further, that enforce¬ 
ment is more easily compassed in cities conveni¬ 
ently connected with centers having a license 
policy. 


7 


97 





XI 

CONDITION OF BUSINESS UNDER 
NO-LICENSE 






CHAPTER XI* 


CONDITION OF BUSINESS UNDER 
NO-LICENSE 

W HILE it is impossible to say how far per¬ 
sonal bias affected the views of the 50f 
retail merchants interviewed in regard 
to the effect of license on business, or how far the 
effect on business had shaped their views on the 
license question, it seemed to be something more 
than a mere coincidence that of 13 who advocated 
license, not one testified to any improvement in 
business under no-license, while of 37 who favored 
no-license but one admitted that his business was 
not as good under no-license as under license. 
Nine of the 13 advocates of license said business 
was worse under no-license, and four said the 
license policy made no difference. Twenty-two 
of the 37 advocates of no-license reported that 
business was better under it, and 14 that it made 
no difference. Of 13 license advocates, 10 did a 
cash business and but three a credit business; 
while of 37 no-license advocates, 12 did a cash 

* This and the following chapter are not considered conclusive 
and are added merely as giving interesting opinions of representative 
persons. 

f In Fitchburg, Newburyport, Salem and Haverhill. 


101 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

business and 25 a credit business. Of the nine 
license advocates who pronounced business worse 
under no-license, seven did a cash business and 
only two a credit business; while the only no¬ 
license advocate who agreed with them was en¬ 
gaged in a cash business. Out of 22 no-license 
merchants who thought that business was better 
under no-license, 17 did a credit business and but 
five did a cash business. Merchants who said the 
license question made no difference were evenly 
divided between those doing business for cash and 
those carrying on a credit business, there being 
nine of each kind. 

The 10 merchants (nine license and one no¬ 
license) who said they thought business was 
worse under no-license based their opinion on the 
loss of non-resident trade from surrounding com¬ 
munities in the evenings during license years. 
Another loss from no-license claimed by these 
merchants was due to the exodus of men to the 
nearest license center. This class of trade was 
almost without exception on a cash basis. As the 
majority coming into the city in license years and 
going out in no-license years were men, the mer¬ 
chants who lost most under no-license were those 
who depended almost wholly on men’s trade. 
Seven of the 10 who claimed to lose trade under 
no-license were engaged in the men’s furnishing 
goods business. Of this number, several said 
that their loss in sales was chiefly in the line of 
small articles, such as hats, neckties, and other 


102 


CONDITION OF BUSINESS UNDER NO-LICENSE 

things that could be easily carried in the hand. 
Two of the clothing dealers volunteered the state¬ 
ment that although the money of the non-residents 
was welcome, they were, generally speaking, a 
“ rough lot,” and that the pleasure of seeing them 
in license years was not unmixed with appre¬ 
hension. Only two persons doing a credit busi¬ 
ness claimed that it decreased under no-license, 
but they finally conceded that the loss consisted 
in the trade of persons who kept saloons in their 
vicinity and who had moved from their part of the 
city when the saloons were abolished. Most of 
those who found trade improved under no-license 
were doing a credit business, and the principal 
reason for their statement was that collections 
were better under no-license. The opinions of 
these merchants contain little reference to the 
many factors that affect business, of which the 
license policy can be only one. That some of 
them had preconceived views on the subject which 
were shaped by their ideas on the license question 
seems fairly evident. For these reasons their 
conclusions, though interesting, must be accepted 
with caution. 


103 



XII 

EMPLOYERS' POINT OF VIEW 





CHAPTER XII 


EMPLOYERS' POINT OF VIEW 

O UT of 68 manufacturers or superintendents 
of factories in the six cities visited, who 
were interviewed as to the effect upon em¬ 
ployes of a policy of no-license as contrasted with 
one of license, 61 declared themselves in favor of 
no-license and seven in favor of license. Fifty-eight 
of these together employed 23,124 men. In stating 
their views all but 15 confined themselves to the 
effect of the two systems on employes in relation to 
their work. In Brockton, the basis of comparison 
was the license year 1898, except in cases of cer¬ 
tain superintendents who had had more recent ex¬ 
perience before coming to Brockton; in Waltham 
it was the license year 1900, except in the instance 
of a few of the superintendents who had pre¬ 
viously been in the license cities of Lawrence, New 
Bedford and Marlboro. In Haverhill, several 
remembered the last no-license years of 1895 and 
1897, while others had observed the workings of 
no-license in Brockton. In Fitchburg, Newbury- 
port and Salem, all had had recent experience with 
both license and no-license years. 

All of the 12 employers interviewed in Brockton 
advocated no-license. They stated that in license 
107 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

years a good deal of trouble arose from the ten¬ 
dency of many workmen to drink frequently in 
saloons on their way to and from work. Those 
who brought their lunches were liable to spend the 
noon hour in the saloons and often went straight 
to them on leaving work at night. Many would 
remain there all the evening, finally going home 
at ten or eleven o’clock. The social features of 
the saloon, the habit of treating and the rounds of 
drinks that were limited only by the number in 
the party and not especially by the desire, were 
given as the chief causes of immoderate drinking. 
All of these Brockton employers said that there 
was less drunkenness among the men, less inter¬ 
ruption of work and better work done in no¬ 
license than in license years. Eight out of 12 
thought that strictness on the employers’ part 
was a great help in checking excessive drinking, 
but that the employer could more easily demand 
sobriety when there were no open saloons to offer 
constant temptation. 

As to drinking under no-license, four employers 
stated that probably the ones who drank least 
or not at all were the young, those who had no 
special desire to drink, and those who were willing 
to stop drinking, these three classes being the 
ones most likely to drink from sociability or imita¬ 
tion. All said that those who continued to drink 
under no-license changed, in a large measure, their 
manner of drinking. Some men waited until 
Saturday night and visited the saloons in Taunton. 

108 


employers’ point of view 

Six of the superintendents said that a few of their 
men bought alcohol by the bottle; one that about 
50 per cent of his men drank moderately. All said 
that whether the men drank much or little, in 
their homes or out of them, the chief consideration 
was that during the working time the men were 
more dependable, that not over 2 per cent troubled 
them by drunkenness, and that they were able 
to weed out even these, as steady workmen were 
to be had at all times under no-license. 

In some of the shops, the lasters, who are the 
poorest paid workers, gave more trouble than 
others. The Russians and Poles were inclined 
to drink even under no-license. The Hebrews and 
the southern European races were spoken of as 
temperate people; some of the Italians, however, 
who would naturally drink beer or wine, were said 
to drink alcohol and spirituous liquor which could 
be bought in smaller quantity and at less cost 
than their accustomed drinks. Several manu¬ 
facturers thought that the highly paid piece¬ 
workers, many of whom work under a severe 
nervous strain, were especially given to excess if 
they drank at all, and that they were sometimes 
led to drink beer and ale in the mistaken belief 
that it supplied physical strength. These people 
went to the saloons in license years, partly for the 
latter reason, and partly for sociability, and 
drank more than they would if they had a case 
of beer at home. 

In Fitchburg, one factory superintendent fav- 
109 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

ored license and 14 no-license. The license man 
could see no difference in the effect of the two 
systems on his workers. These were nearly all 
foreigners, mostly French and Italians, who 
drank Sundays and holidays and were able, with a 
few exceptions, to work steadily most of the time. 
The 14 no-license men spoke of the proximity of 
saloons to factories in license years, and com¬ 
plained of the frequent drinking as interfering 
with work. One manufacturer summed up the 
situation in a license year by saying that for six 
weeks after May 1, when the license law took 
effect, many of the men would line up in the 
saloons like cattle, morning, noon and night. 
After that time, when the newness had worn off, 
about 2 per cent of his men would continue to 
drink until they were discharged, while a number 
of others who drank little or nothing under no¬ 
license would spend money in the saloons that was 
needed by their families for necessaries, and yet 
not drink enough to interfere with their work. 

The 14 who favored no-license were not per¬ 
fectly satisfied with it for various reasons. Some 
said that it led to a greater use of spirituous liquors 
obtained from druggists; others that the liquor 
sold in no-license years was much less pure than 
that sold by the saloons, and, therefore, the habit¬ 
ual drinkers were put at a disadvantage under no¬ 
license. Nearly all thought that while many of 
the younger men and those who did not care about 
liquor except for the sociability of^the thing 
110 


employers' point of view 

stopped drinking, or drank much less, many 
others continued to drink under no-license, but 
usually not so constantly; that |those who gave 
trouble by irregularity in their work were chiefly 
persons belonging to the “stretch gang" who 
occasionally left their work for several days at a 
time. Most of these were the poorest paid class of 
workers, usually lasters, among whom the French 
were largely represented. Four employers ex¬ 
pressed the belief that the attitude of the super¬ 
intendent towards drinking had great influence 
with the men. 

In Newburyport, five manufacturers were inter¬ 
viewed, all of whom favored no-license. They 
agreed in saying that in no-license years their 
men drank less frequently during week days, and 
that drinking interfered less with work. They 
also declared that during license years, many of 
the men drank habitually in the saloons, were ir¬ 
regular as to hours, and did poorer work, and that 
there were more discharges on this account than 
in no-license years. All stated that many of the 
men went to Ipswich in 1907 during the evening, 
but that they did not go every day, most of them 
waiting until Saturday, and that this manner of 
drinking was not so productive of irregular work. 
All objected to liquor being “handy," as in license 
years, and condemned social drinking in saloons 
because it led to excess, and tempted the young 
and others who were not addicted to the use of 
liquor to become habitual drinkers. 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

In Salem, all of the 11 employers interrogated 
were in favor of no-license. Five said that strict¬ 
ness on the employer’s part helped to check ir¬ 
regularity, but that they could more easily insist 
upon sobriety during working hours when there 
were no saloons. Four said that about i per 
cent of their men became “bottle fiends” in no¬ 
license years, and one stated that no-license 
helped all except this class of drinkers. All de¬ 
plored the fact that shoe workers are roving and 
undependable, a complaint which was heard in 
Haverhill also, but not once in Brockton. The 
reason for this seems to be that the Brockton 
shoe workers, making a better grade of goods, are 
more highly organized in unions, receive better 
pay, and are more intelligent than the shoe workers 
elsewhere. All of the employers agreed that 
saloon drinking interfered with regularity in work 
and that their trouble in this respect was much 
less in no-license years. 

Eleven of the 13 Waltham employers interro¬ 
gated favored no-license. One of the two who 
did not favor it employed a rough class of un¬ 
skilled laborers who "drank to excess just as often 
in no-license as in license years.”* He stated 
that about 20 per cent of his men got drunk on 
pay days under either system. The other said that 
his men, mostly southern Europeans, did not 
drink to excess, and that the work was of such a 
character that any man could do it who could 
stand on his feet. In two industries employing 

* Waltham has been no-license since 1900. 


employers' point of view 

highly skilled people, very little excessive drink¬ 
ing occurred, whether the city was license or no¬ 
license. The degree of skill and intelligence re¬ 
quired in these industries called for employes who 
usually respected both themselves and their work 
too much to indulge in excessive drinking. These 
employers thought, also, that competition for 
positions was keen among the highest grades of 
workmen and that they, consequently, prized their 
positions more than less skilled people. 

In nine Waltham shops having less skilled 
workmen, the employers stated that work was 
less interrupted in no-license years, and that al¬ 
though they felt sure that many of the men went 
to Boston to drink and kept liquor in their houses, 
they preferred this to the continual drinking that 
went on during the day in license years. Seven 
of the 11 no-license men stated that they were not 
abstainers and two that they voted for no-license 
only after seeing its beneficial effect upon their 
workmen. One superintendent, a believer in no¬ 
license, who had occasional trouble with men who 
drank heavily, gave them the choice between dis¬ 
charge and a regular course of medical treatment. 
He believed that if employers took a personal 
interest in their men and insisted on moderation 
in their use of liquor and medical treatment for 
the inebriates, a great deal could be done to pro¬ 
mote temperance. 

In Haverhill, which had had license since May i, 
1898, eight of the 12 employers interviewed fav- 

8 113 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

ored the change to no-license* while four were 
skeptical as to its good effect. Nine smaller 
factories which were not visited had registered 
their preference to the extent of contributing to 
the no-license campaign of 1907, or pledging 
their support for that of 1908. Six employers 
(three voting no-license and three license) said 
that during license years their work was greatly 
interrupted because of drunkenness; five out of 
the six stated that they had to discharge many 
men for this cause, while one (no-license) said he 
was obliged to put up with the trouble as he had 
no hope of getting steadier men than he already 
had. Six employers (five voting no-license and 
one license) said they had had little trouble, and 
attributed the fact to the strictness of their super¬ 
intendents and foremen. The five no-license men 
welcomed no-license in the hope that they could 
secure regular work from their men without so 
much vigilance. Most of the manufacturers 
favoring no-license deplored the proximity of 
saloons to the factories, saying that their men, 
unless watched, would leave their work several 
times a day to get liquor. According to estimates 
furnished by superintendents of the shops visited, 
the discharges for drunkenness during the license 
years in Haverhill ran from 2 to 6 per cent of the 
employes a year, while the highest estimated per 
cent of discharges mentioned in the other five 
cities in no-license years was 2 per cent per year, 

* Haverhill became no-license on May i, 1908. 

114 


employers’ point of view 

with the exception of one shop in Newburyport 
which had discharged about 6 per cent in 1907 
(no-license). 

The general opinion of all the employers inter¬ 
viewed in the six cities was that drinking in 
saloons was most abused by American-born 
people, especially those of Irish descent, who are 
socially inclined, given to “ treating,” and who 
often drink to excess when with companions. 
The Finlanders and Poles also were said to 
be inclined to excessive drinking in company. 
The seven employers who favored license did so 
largely in the conscientious belief that most 
persons who drank in license years would con¬ 
tinue to do so in no-license years, and that liquor 
obtained in a no-license city was so poisonous that 
the harm from it was not offset by the benefits 
accruing to a few who escaped temptation. Many 
of the no-license men agreed with the license men 
on the facts, but reached the opposite conclusion; 
namely, that the younger and more hopeful cases 
and the purely social drinkers who were helped 
by no-license conditions were of greater importance 
than all the more or less confirmed drinkers, and 
further, that the diminished opportunity to buy 
drink resulted in less interruption to work than the 
practically continuous invitation held out by open 
saloons. Many of the employers said that numbers 
of their men voted against the saloon because of the 
expense of social drinking, preferring on that ac¬ 
count to have the liquor in their homes. The weight 
11 5 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

of opinion of the manufacturers interviewed seemed 
to be that no-license is a benefit in so far as it 
keeps some men from drinking, and changes the 
habits of drinking by more nearly confining it to 
evenings and other free time, so that work suffers 
less from interruption than when the open saloon 
invites their men to drink frequently during the 
working hours. 


APPENDICES 














APPENDIX A 


SUMMARY OF THE MOST IMPORTANT LEGIS¬ 
LATION DEALING WITH THE LIQUOR 
TRAFFIC IN MASSACHUSETTS, FROM 
COLONIAL DAYS TO 1908 

1633—No sale of wine or strong water to be made 
without leave of the Executive; no sale or 
gift of liquor to the Indians “except in the 
ordinary course of trade.” 

Records of Mass., p. 106. 

1637—Innkeepers must not sell sack or strong water. 
Id. p. 205. 

1 637— Beer selling regulated, tippling in inns forbidden, 

and brewers licensed. 

Id. p. 213. 

1638— One person in each of 11 towns allowed to retail 

sack and strong water. 

Id. p. 221. 

1639— Wine not allowed to be drunk where retailed. 
Id. p. 258. 

1 639—Drinking of healths forbidden, penalty 12 d. 
Id. p. 271. 

1646— Licenses allowed by quarter courts; excessive 

drinking punished by fine of seller and drinker, 
penalty 5 to 10 s. 

2 Records of Mass., p. 100. 

1647— Licenses granted by county courts. 

Id. p. 188. 


119 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

1648—Concealing drunken men about licensed premises 
punished by fine of £ 5 . 

Id. p. 257. 

1651—Youths, servants, apprentices, and scholars not 
allowed in ordinaries, penalty 40 s. 

3 Records of Mass., p. 242. 

1654—Penalty for allowing excessive drinking on li¬ 
censed premises 20 s; second offense, for¬ 
feiture of license. 

Id. p. 359. 

1 657—Sale of liquor to Indians forbidden, penalty 40 s. 

Id. p. 425. 

1661—Sale of liquor by unlicensed persons subject to 
penalty of £ 5 . 

4 Records of Mass., part 2 p. 37. 

1670—Names of drunkards posted; sales to them for¬ 
bidden. 

1679—Sales of liquor forbidden at musters and other 
gatherings, penalty £ 5 . 

5 Records of Mass., p. 211. 

1751—Sales to negroes, Indians, and mulatto slaves for¬ 
bidden. 

Province Laws ch. 5. 

1807—Re-enactment of most of foregoing regulations. 
License fees $10 to $30. Giving credit of 
over 10 s. for drink prohibited. 

Laws of Mass. 1780-1807, vol. 1, p. 374. 

1831— License fee for soft liquor $1.00 to $5.00. 

Laws 1831 ch. 136. 

1832— Discretion given to County Commissioners and 

Mayor and Aldermen of Boston to grant 
licenses to as many persons as public good 
requires. No license fee. 

Laws 1832 ch. 186. 


120 


SUMMARY OF THE MOST IMPORTANT LEGISLATION 

1838—Licensed dealers forbidden to sell less than 15 
gallons, to be carried away at one time. 

1838—Druggists and physicians might be licensed to 
retail liquor for medicinal purposes. 

Laws 1838 ch. 157. (Repealed in 1840.) 

1850—County Commissioners might grant license to 
as many persons as public good required to 
retail liquor for medical and mechanical pur¬ 
poses. 

Laws 1850 ch. 232. 

1852—Prohibitory law for whole state passed. 

Laws 1852 ch. 322. 

1855—Sales of liquor by city and town agents. Ap¬ 
pointment of agent in towns of 1000 inhabi¬ 
tants or under, discretionary; in towns and 
cities of over 1000, mandatory. 

Laws of 1855 ch. 215 and 470. 

1868—Prohibitory law repealed. Four classes of 
licenses and fees, as follows: 

1st. To be drunk on premises, fee $100. 

2nd and 3rd. Grocers and druggists. Not to 
be drunk on premises. Fee $50. 

4th. Brewers and distillers, for export. Fee 
1100. 

Laws 1868 ch. 141. 

1868— Cities and towns to vote annually on question of 

granting licenses for liquor to be drunk on the 
premises. (Local option.) 

Laws 1868 ch. 141, §6. 

1869— Second prohibitory law for state passed. 

Licenses granted to manufacturers for export 

only. 

Appointment of town agents in towns contain- 


121 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 

ing 5000 or more inhabitants, compulsory; 
in towns of less than 5000, discretionary. 
Laws 1869 ch. 191 —415. 

1870— Prohibition removed from sale of ale, porter and 

lager beer. 

Laws 1870 ch. 389. 

1871— Cities and towns to vote annually on licensing 

sale of ale, porter and beer. 

Laws 1871 ch. 334. 

1873—Laws 1871 ch. 334 repealed. Sale of ale, porter 
and beer prohibited. 

1875—License law enacted. 

1 st class licenses $100 to f 1000. 

2nd and 3rd class licenses $50 to $250. 

4th class licenses granted to druggists and 
others. 

1875—Granting of licenses discretionary with Mayor 
and Aldermen or Selectmen. 

Laws 1875 ch. 99. 

1875—Liquor containing more than 3 per cent alcohol 
to be deemed intoxicating. 

1878—Druggists licensed to sell liquor of any kind for 
medicinal, mechanical and chemical purposes 
(6th class). 4th and 5th class licenses also 
granted. 

Laws 1878 ch. 203. 

1881—Local option established (still in force) providing 
that cities and towns shall vote annually upon 
the question of selling intoxicating liquor. If 
vote is “yes,” discretionary power rests with 
Aldermen or Selectmen to refuse to issue 
licenses of first 5 classes. They have no dis¬ 
cretion as to licenses of first 5 classes if vote 
is “no.” Question of granting 6th class 
122 


SUMMARY OF THE MOST IMPORTANT LEGISLATION 

licenses to druggists is discretionary, what¬ 
ever the vote. 

Laws 1881 ch. 54. 

1882—No person to bring liquor to a no-license town to 
be sold. (Does not apply to transportation 
to a town beyond.) 

P. S. ch. 100, §17. 

1885—Scientific temperance instruction in public 
schools provided. 

Laws 1885 ch. 332. 

1887— Posting of United States tax receipt to be prima 

facie evidence that liquor is kept for sale on 
premises. 

Laws 1887 ch. 414. 

1888— Constitutional amendment prohibiting manu¬ 

facture and sale of intoxicating liquor passed 
by legislature. Defeated at the polls in 1889. 
Laws 1888 p. 566. 

1888—Liquor containing more than 1 per cent of alco¬ 
hol to be deemed intoxicating. 

Laws 1888 ch. 219. 

1888—License limited to 1 for every 1000 inhabitants; 
(in Boston, 1 for every 500). Fees raised: 
Laws 1888 ch. 340. 

1 st class, not less than $1000. 

2nd and 3rd class, not less than $250. 

4th class, not less than $300. 

5th class, not less than $150. 

6th class, not less than $1.00. 

1 st class. To sell liquors of any kind to be 
drunk on the premises. 

2nd class. To sell malt liquors, cider and 
light wines containing not more than 15 per 
cent of alcohol, to be drunk on the premises. 
123 


LOCAL OPTION IN MASSACHUSETTS 


3rd class. To sell malt liquors and cider, to 
be drunk on the premises. 

4th class. To sell liquors of any kind, not to 
be drunk on the premises. 

5th class. To sell malt liquors, cider and 
light wines containing not more than 15 per 
cent of alcohol, not to be drunk on the 
premises. 

6th class. Licenses to retail druggists and 
apothecaries to sell liquors of any kind for 
medicinal, mechanical or chemical purposes 
only, and to such persons only as may certify 
in writing for what use they want the liquor. 
7th class. Licenses * to dealers in paints or in 
chemicals to sell alcohol for mechanical, 
manufacturing or chemical purposes only. 
(Fee 1 1.00.) 

1890—Liquor sellers not to employ minors under eigh¬ 
teen to serve liquor. 

R. L. ch. 100 sec. 60. 

1897—Railroads and general expresses allowed to carry 
liquor into no-license cities; no permits re¬ 
quired. 

Laws 1897 ch. 271. Also see R. L. ch. 100, sec. 49. 

1899—Brewers or bottlers not to employ minors under 
eighteen to handle liquor or packages of liquor. 

R. L. ch. 100, sec. 61. 

1906—State Board of Pharmacy permits druggists 
having certificates of fitness to sell on prescrip¬ 
tion of physician in no-license cities which 
refuse to grant 6th class licenses. 

Laws 1906 ch. 281. 

* Law providing for 7th class licenses passed in 1897. Laws 1897 

ch. 398. 


124 


SUMMARY OF THE MOST IMPORTANT LEGISLATION 

1906—No person or corporation except railroad or 
street railway corporation to transport liquor 
into a no-license town without a permit. 
Mayor and Aldermen required to grant an¬ 
nually one or more such permits. (“Pony 
express” bill.) 

Laws 1906 ch. 421. 

I 9°7—Only persons or corporations regularly and law¬ 
fully conducting a general express business * 
(except railroad or street railway corpora¬ 
tions) to receive transportation permits. (No 
requirement that permits shall be granted.) 

Laws 1907 ch. 517. 

♦For interpretation of words “general express business,” dis¬ 
cussion of inter-state traffic, etc., see Commonwealth v. Peoples 
Express Co., 201 Mass. 564 (1909). 


125 


APPENDIX B 


TABLES 

TABLE I.—LICENSE VOTE* 

Number and Per Cent Distribution of the License Vote in Massa¬ 
chusetts, 1885 to 1907, Classified by Cities and Towns. 


Year 

Total Vote 

Percentages 

Total 

Towns 

Ten Cities 
near Boston f 

Other 
Cities t 


Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

1885 

92419 

81161 

53-0 

47.0 

16.9 

19.6 

4.4 

5-5 

3i-7 

21.9 

1886 

92716 

102011 

47-5 

52.5 

13-6 

20.0 

3-o 

5-5 

30.9 

27.0 

1887 

109988 

117188 

48.0 

52.0 

12.7 

18.8 

3-6 

6.6 

3i-7 

26.6 

1888 

125481 

107401 

54-o 

46.0 

12.8 

18.3 

4.0 

6.7 

37-2 

21.0 

1889 

108894 

114550 

48.5 

5i.5 

13-4 

20.4 

4.2 

5-8 

30.9 

25-3 

1890 

125494 

105958 

54-o 

46.0 

9.0 

15.2 

4-7 

6.5 

40.3 

24.3 

1891 

119191 

127123 

48.5 

5i-5 

13-4 

16.5 

4-4 

6.6 

30.7 

28.4 

1892 

134819 

158957 

46.0 

54-o 

9.0 

17.4 

4.8 

7.6 

32.2 

29.0 

1893 

147812 

147108 

50.1 

49-9 

13.4 

18.5 

4.9 

6.9 

31-8 

24-5 

1894 

158052 

155873 

50.5 

49-5 

10.6 

19.1 

4.6 

6.9 

35-3 

23-5 

189s 

162039 

163866 

49-8 

52.2 

X3-I 

17.6 

4.6 

7-7 

32.1 

24.9 

1896 

168088 

164551 

50.5 

49-5 

132 

17.9 

4-3 

7-4 

33-o 

24.2 

1897 

172199 

165809 

51.0 

49.0 

13-3 

17.6 

4-3 

7-1 

33-4 

24-3 

1898 

15954° 

167032 

48.8 

51-2 

14.0 

18.6 

4-3 

7-5 

20.5 

25-1 

1899 

184242 

169366 

52.0 

48.0 

13-2 

17.6 

4.6 

7-1 

34-2 

23-3 

1900 

174504 

171941 

50.5 

49-5 

13.8 

16.9 

4-3 

7-5 

32.4 

25-1 

1901 

179869 

171976 

51.0 

49.0 

136 

18.0 

4.2 

7-4 

33-2 

23.6 

1902 

182218 

172789 

51.5 

48.5 

14.3 

18.3 

4-5 

7-8 

32.7 

22.4 

1903 

185673 

181063 

So-S 

49-5 

13.6 

18.3 

4.8 

8.9 

32.1 

22.3 

1904 

194355 

181059 

52.0 

48.0 

16.5 

18.7 

4.4 

8.0 

311 

21.3 

1905 

203790 

187340 

52.0 

48.0 

13-6 

17-6 

4.2 

8.3 

34-2 

22.1 

1906 

190963 

183532 

51.0 

49.0 

14-3 

18.8 

4-3 

8.5 

32.4 

21.7 

1907 

188x46 

201334 

48.3 

5i-7 

13-2 

15-2 

4.1 

8.4 

31.0 

28.1 


* Compiled from returns made by the Secretary of the Common¬ 
wealth. Figures are for the calendar year. Cities vote in December; 
towns in the following February, March and April; the result of the 
vote goes into effect May 1. 

f Cambridge, Everett, Malden, Newton, Quincy, Somerville, 
Melrose, Medford, Chelsea and Waltham. 

t Beverly, Boston, Brockton, Fitchburg, Salem, Haverhill, 
Woburn, Gloucester, Fall River, Lowell, Lynn, Pittsfield, Worcester, 
Lawrence, Marlboro, New Bedford, Newburyport, Taunton, Chicopee, 
North Adams, Northampton. Springfield and Holyoke. 

126 




















TABLE II.—POPULATION 


Number of No-License Years of Cities of Massachusetts and their 
Rank according to Percentage of Increase in Population from 1885 
to 1905.* 


Cities 

Number 
of Years 
No- 
License 

Population 

Rank 

°f 

City 

Miles 

from 

Boston 

ob 

00 

VJ1 

1905 

Per 

cent 

In¬ 

crease 

1. Beverly. 

20 

9186 

15223 

65.0 

22 

19 

2. Cambridge ... 

20 

59658 

97434 

61.5 

2 3 

3 

3. Everett. 

20 

5825 

29111 

400.0 

1 

3 i 

4. Malden. 

20 

16407 

38037 

132.0 

3 

5 

5. Newton. 

20 

>9759 

36827 

86.5 

12 

7 

6. Quincy. 

20 

12145 

28076 

131.0 

4 

8 

7. Somerville ... 

20 

29971 

69272 

131.0 

5 

2 

8. Melrose. 

19 

6101 

14295 

134.0 

2 

6 i 

9. Brockton .... 

18 

20783 

47794 

130.0 

6 

20 

10. Medford. 

16 

9042 

19686 

118.0 

8 

5 

11. Fitchburg. ... 

14 

>5375 

33021 

115.0 

9 

5 ° 

12. Chelsea. 

»3 

25709 

37289 

45.0 

26 

3 

13. Waltham_ 

11 

14609 

26282 

80.0 

1 5 

9 

14. Salem. 

10 

28090 

37627 

33.8 

2 7 

>7 

15. Haverhill 

5 

21795 

37830 

73 *7 

19 

33 

16. Woburn. 

5 

1 175° 

14402 

22.6 

3 ° 

10 

17. Gloucester ... 

4 

21703 

26011 

19.8 

31 

3 2 

18. Fall River . .. 

3 

56870 

105762 

86.0 

>3 

5 > 

19. Lowell. 

3 

64107 

94889 

48.3 

2 5 

26 

20. Lynn. 

3 

45867 

77042 

68.0 

21 

12 

21. Pittsfield. 

3 

14466 

25001 

73 ° 

20 

1 5 1 

22. Worcester.. .. 

3 

68389 

128135 

87.5 

11 

45 

23. Lawrence .... 

2 

38862 

70050 

80.0 

>4 

2 7 

24. Marlboro. 

2 

10941 

14073 

28.6 

29 

3 > 

25. New Bedford. 

2 

33393 

74362 

122.0 

7 

56 

26. Newburyport.. 

2 

13716 

14675 

7.0 

3 2 

38 

27. Taunton. 

2 

2367a 

30967 

30.8 

28 

37 

28. Chicopee. 

1 

11516 

20191 

75-5 

18 

104 

29. North Adams. 

1 

12540 

22150 

76.5 

>7 

1 43 

30. Northampton 

1 

12896 

19957 

59.0 

2 4 

116 

31. Springfield ... 

1 

37575 

73540 

95 -° 

10 

99 

32. Holyoke. 

0 

27895 

49934 

79.0 

16 

107 


* For convenience, the first 14 cities, which have had no-license for 
at least half of the twenty-year period, are usually referred to as 
“no-license” cities. 


127 



































TABLE III.—PROPERTY AND TAXATION 

Total Valuation of Property, the Tax Rate, Per Capita Revenuefrom Taxes and their Increase or Decrease in Citi 
of Massachusetts, Classified by Number of Years of License or No-License, from 1886 to 1905.*_ 


<D 


t/i 

< 

H 

a 

o 

Pi 

Ph 

W 

P 

5 ? 

w 

> 

w 

P 4 

< 

H 

Ph 

< 

CJ 

rt 

w 

Ph 


+ 


£ v «0 

<3 ^ <0 

vj 


vj 

8 


m O 

M O0 


o o 

fO O 


o o 

w O0 


10 10 o 

N HOO 


■*+ ID CS 


rt m 

M 


to h cO 


++I+I I++ ++++I++ 

OOO 

o q o 

m ro 10 


U)H « 
H 


10 o o 

co to O' 

• • • 

CO 


O O to O 

IO Tf* M M 

cs cs vo cs 


000 ^ 00 ^^ 0 ^ 

TffO'OO'H CidOO N ' 


10 h n n ^\0 cs 


cs 
■<t rt 


10 

O 

o 


MOOtoOOOOOOO 

O' cs vo O mvO O fO N rtvO 


10 o o 

m moo 


cs 

cs 


o 

cs 


co rt m ’'t VO O CO rt lO CS 
MMCOMMMMCSMM 


rt CO 

M M 


O O to O O O to 
vo CS O *0 <0 rf vo 

4 4 4 vo CO COO 

M M M 


82 


cs 


M M M M M M 


o o 

cO 00 

COO 
M 


o o 

O' cs 

4 

M 


CS 


0 0*000 
rfoq cq o cs 

6 46^ 4 

H M H M H 


*0 

00 

00 


000*o000*ovo00000 
00 rt coo vo *000 O tovO vo m cs m 

00 4 H 6 6 O' CO M CO CN CO CO M rt 

M M M M CS MH M M M M M 


o o 

to cs 


*0 O O 

O' tooO 


CO H O t T CS M 
H M M M M 


O *0 o O *0 

cs O' cs cs O' 

N CO woo to o CS vo MOO cs o 

MM M H M 


O O O O O to o 

rt O' vo O CO O' M 


o 

o 

o 

M 

Pi 

w 

rt 

w 

H 

c 

PS 

X 

< 

H 


to 

O 

O' 


00000000000000 
cq O 00 cs O cq co O rt rt rt O cq oq 

vo O' m moo co 00 co O m o 0"0 m 

MMMMMMMMCSCSCSMMM 


OOOOOOO 
VO O cs GO cs rt vo 


00000000 

CO CO T}- rt (N o O O 


o o 

rt o 


M O'00 00 O CO CO MvO O' O' M O M 

MMMMCSMMMMMMMCSCS 


N MON 
CS M M M 


to 

00 

00 


00000000000000 

00 tOOO 00 O'O'O N00 o Cl N H VO 

to to cs co 4 co'O 4 co 4co 06 tovd 

MMMMM m MMMMMMMM 

4 ^ ++ 


OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 

tooo toco O co voovo 0 co O co 00 O tooo cs 

6 vO MCO O N <N 06 O Mvd 4 M CS 6 cs CS M 
CSMMMMMMMMCSMMMMCSMMH 


*t— 

H 

Pi 

W 

rt 

O 

Pi 

Ps 


O 

M 

H 

p 

rt 

> 


rt 

JS 

O 

H 


s 

<0 

CO 


<0 

<0 

M, 


tqtqqqqoqqqqqoqoq 

vo M 4 *0 4 m CO cs o cs 6 VO cs 0 
O'CO CO to cs o CO CS vovO CS CO O M 
co mm^smcsmmm m 


tqco O tqvo tqOOtqOOcsoOtoOOOO 

06 m 4 v 5 d m 4 d o c> to 4 m dcd m vo 06 

CO co MOO co Q> w cs m O O rt co M O' to cs vo 

MM MM M MM 


to 

o 

O' 


vovO cs to tosD mOmOmOhco to 

m rtO»CS cONrtcO't'tNH 0*0 vO 

CO CO m covo iomcomcscsmOcs O' 
O COCS CS rt 10 O' to cs M tOlOCOO VO 
CS O cs COVO CStOMCOCSCSCSCSCS cs 
M 


co rt rt co M O O tovO O O to cs coo rt co 

VO O' to CO to covo CO cs VO o -rt MvO rt O CS 

M CO MvO M COOO CS M COCO N OCO M O' M 

OMMMVOOOOvOO^tOMO^tCSOM 
M C1CO MOM N rt VOMCSMMMOO-^* 


to 

CO 

00 

M 


covo rt CO O Ovoo OO'MtotoO'O VO vO 
CO rt CO to O 00 M MOO cs O' to M vo cs vo 

VO co m vO O rtOO MOO m rt rtoO O fOOO 

o to VO cs OOO rt rt CS CO h CO O to rt N 

M to M CS CS M MMMCS M 

&> 


M o CO O'CO rt rt m 00 w CS rtN rtvO »o 

M cs o tooo M rt M o to o O 00 rt co CO 

COOO CO rt 10 M M M CO to 10VO O' rtOO m 
cs CO M CO CO cs M rt M MVO to rtOO tovO 

M rt to cs iocs CO M COM 



Vo 


8 


CO 

<o 


>4 


M cs rtvO MOO to tovO M M M M MOO 00000000 O' O O O O 
M MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMCS 


%> 

I 

^ 8 OOOOOOO O'CO vo rt CO w O tOtOrtcOCOCOCOCOCSCSCSCSCSMMMMO 

CSCSCSCSCSCSCSMMMMMMM 




M CS CO ^ to'O MOO O' o M CS CO rt 

H M M M M 


tovO MOO O' O W cs CO 4 to'O MOO O' 6 M cs 
mmmhmcscscscscscscscscscs co co co 



♦Compiled from Public Document “ Polls, Property and Taxes.” 

f In thousands. t License Year; rate for no-license (1884) $17.00. 









































































TABLE IV.—TAXES 

Tax Rate and Per Capita Revenue from Taxes and License Fees, 
Classified by License and No-License Cities (1906).* 


Cities t 

Tax Rate 

Per Capita 
Revenue 
from Taxes 

Per Capita 
Revenue 
from, 
License 
Fees 

Total 

per 

Capita 

Revenue 

No-license 

Beverly. 

$18.00 

$27.46 


$27.46 

Brockton. 

1970 

18.26 

— 

18.26 

Cambridge. 

18.60 

20.61 

— 

20.61 

Everett. 

19.30 

15.83 

— 

15.83 

Fitchburg. 

19.00 

15.85 

— 

1 5*85 

Malden. 

Medford. 

17.20 

20.20 

15.48 

22.90 

z 

15.48 

22.90 

Melrose. 

17.80 

19.86 

— 

19.86 

Newton. 

16.40 

29.90 

— 

29.90 

Quincy. 

18.60 

18.27 

— 

18.27 

Somerville. 

17.40 

15.70 

— 

15.70 

Waltham. 

16.50 

15.48 

— 

15.48 

Averages.... 

118.27 

$19.68 


$19.68 

License 





Chelsea. 

19.60 

14.21 

$.95 

15.16 

Chicopee. 

19.30 

10.31 

1.24 

”•55 

Fall River. 

18.40 

15.06 

1.44 

16.50 

Gloucester. 

17.50 

15.20 

1 .*4 

16.34 

Haverhill. 

17.40 

13.21 

1.22 

14.43 

Holyoke. 

17.00 

15.16 

1.17 

16.33 

Lawrence. 

16.00 

12.22 

1.96 

14.18 

Lowell. 

19.60 

.5.87 

i -37 

17.24 

Lynn. 

17.00 

* 4-53 

1.21 

1 5-74 

Marlboro. 

19.50 

14.19 

1.12 

* 5 - 3 * 

New Bedford .. 

18.40 

16.92 

1.04 

17.96 

Newburyport.. 

18.20 

14-43 

1.28 

15.71 

North Adams.. 

20.00 

13.65 

i -35 

15.00 

Northampton.. 

16.50 

11.03 

1 •* 5 

12.18 

Pittsfield. 

18.50 

*4-58 

1.20 

15.78 

Salem. 

*7*5° 

14.82 

1.19 

16.01 

Springfield. 

15.00 

18.22 

1.02 

19.24 

Taunton. 

19.00 

13.98 

1.25 

* 5- 2 3 

Woburn. 

18.00 

13.94 

1 • 1 3 

15.07 

Worcester. 

16.60 

16.55 

1.29 

17.84 

Averages.... 

$17.95 

$ 14.40 

$ 1.24 

$15.64 


* Compiled from Public Document, “Polls, Property and Taxes," 
for 1906. 

f The classification of cities in this table is based on the licensing 
policy during 1906. 

9 


129 






















































TABLE V.—CO-OPERATIVE BANKS 


Ratio of Shareholders in Co-operative Banks, and Value of Shares 
Per Capita in Cities of Massachusetts, Classified by Number of License 
and No-License Years, from 1886 to 1905.* 


Cities 

Number 
of Years 

Number of 
Shareholders 

PER IOOO 

Inhabitants 

Value of Shares 
per Capita 

No-License 

License 

ITS 

00 

00 

O 

O' 

Increase ( + ) or 

Decrease (-) 

LTN 

00 

00 

LT\ 

O 

- 

Increase ( + ) or 

Decrease (-) 

1. 

Beverly. 

20 

0 

18.4 

43-5 

25.1 + 

$.50 

$I7.40$l6.90 + 

2. 

Cambridge®... 

20 

0 

8.6 

17.7 

9-1 + 

2.12 

7- 2 5 

5-*3 + 

3- 

Everett®. 

20 

0 

9.2 

8.5 

■7" 

3.85 

3*7 

.68- 

4- 

Malden®. 

20 

0 

22.4 

27.9 

5-5 + 

8.77 

12.95 

4.18 + 

5- 

Newton®. 

20 

0 

39.8 

36.4 

3-4- 

I2.3O 

17.80 

5.50 + 

0. 

Quincy®. 

20 

0 

35.0 

55-o 

20.0 + 

11.20 

23.40 

12.20 + 

7- 

Somerville®.... 

20 

0 

24.4 

23-4 

1.0 — 

9.25 

10.65 

1.40+ 

8. 

Melrose®. 

19 

1 

9-7 

*4-i 

4-4+ 

2.17 

3.86 

1.69 + 

9- 

Brockton. 

18 

2 

47-1 

54-5 

7-4 + 

9.25 

17.50 

8.25 + 

10. 

Medford®. 

16 

4 

39.8 

46.5 

6.7 + 

18.20 

30.00 

11.80+ 

11. 

Fitchburg. 

14 

6 

42.9 

i* 5 -i 

72.2 + 

IO.45 

60.90 

5°-45 + 

12. 

Chelsea®. 

13 

7 

27.4 

35-3 

7-9+ 

I I.70 

18.00 

6.30+ 

*3- 

Waltham. 

11 

9 

66.7 

79-3 

12.6 + 

II.85 

26.65 

14.80 + 

14. 

Salem. 

10 

10 

26.0 

49.0 

23.0 + 

2.08 

12.80 

10.72 + 

*5- 

Haverhill. 

5 

*5 

19.2 

40.6 

21.4+ 

3.26 

17.00 

3-74 + 

16. 

Woburn 1 . 

5 

*5 

20.0 

50.0 

300 + 

.48 

20.10 

19.62 + 

*7- 

Gloucester.... 

4 

16 

9.4 

35-9 

26.5 + 

.22 

11.80 

11.58 + 

18. 

Fall River.... 

3 

17 

11-4 

30.6 

19.2 + 

2.00 

13.80 

11.80 + 

19. 

Lowell. 

3 

*7 

3-7 

18.6 

14.9 + 

.06 

8.20 

8.14 + 

20. 

Lynn. 

3 

*7 

4-i 

44.0 

39-9 + 

•57 

10.60 

10.03 + 

21. 

Pittsfield 3 . 

3 

17 

21.2 

56.0 

34-8 + 

•54 

22.20 

21.66 + 

22. 

Worcester .... 

3 

17 

15.6 

24.7 

9-* + 

2.60 

12.10 

9-5° + 

2 3- 

Lawrence. 

2 

18 

4-3 

23-3 

I9-0+ 

.12 

10.20 

10.08 + 

24. 

Marlboro. 

2 

18 

35-5 

40.2 

47 + 

.80 

11.00 

10.20+ 

25. 

New Bedford . 

2 

18 

13.1 

21.7 

8.6 + 

2.18 

8.25 

6.07 + 

26. Newburyport 2 . 

2 

18 

21.2 

47.1 

25.9 + 

•55 

17.00 

16.45 + 

27. 

Taunton. 

2 

18 

62.5 

104.0 

41.5 + 

12.60 

44.00 

31.40 + 

28. Chicopee. 

1 

19 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 


29. 

North Adams 5 

1 

19 

6.5 

34-4 

27.9 + 

•42 

15.60 

15.18 + 

30. Northampton 4 

1 

19 

16.7 

54.0 

37-3 + 

•34 

19.40 

19.06+ 

3*- 

Springfield. .. . 

1 

19 

8.0 

14.8 

6.8 + 

1.12 

5- 2 5 

4- *3 + 

32. Holyoke. 

0 

20 

10.0 

34-4 

24.4 + 

1.32 

9.85 

8.53 + 


1 Started in 1887. 3 Started in 1889. 6 Started in 1891. 

3 Started in 1888. 4 Started in 1890. 6 Started in 1895. 

* Reports of Mass. Savings Bank Commissioner. 

130 





































TABLE VI.—SAVINGS BANKS 


Ratio of Depositors in Savings Banks and Per Capita Deposits in 
Cities of Massachusetts, Classified by Number of License and No-License 
Years, from 1886 to 1905.* 


Cities 

Number 
of Years 

Number of 
Depositors 

PER IOOO 

Inhabitants 

Amount of 
Yearly Deposits 
per Capita 

No-License 

License 

00 

00 

UN 

O 

S' 

Increase ( + ) or 

Decrease (-) 

00 

00 

LTn 

0 

S' 

Increase ( + ) or 

Decrease (-) 

1. 

Beverly. 

20 

0 

360 

505 

145 + 

$24.40 

$30.00 

$ 5.604* 

2. 

Cambridge. 

20 

0 

356 

475 

119 + 

25.40 

29.30 

3.90 + 

3 - 

Everett. 

20 

0 


110 

— 


6.80 

— 

4 - 

Malden. 

20 

0 

210 

402 

192 + 

17.00 

26.00 

9.00 + 

5 - 

Newton. 

20 

0 

2 73 

465 

192 + 

17.80 

29.00 

11.204- 

6. 

Quincy. 

20 

0 

363 

410 

47 + 

24.70 

27.80 

3.10 + 

7 - 

Somerville. 

20 

0 

6 

x v 

125 + 

.90 

6.42 

5.52 + 

8. 

Melrose. 

19 

1 

208 

362 

154 + 

17.50 

17.80 

.30 + 

9 - 

Brockton. 

18 

2 

131 

480 

349 + 

15.10 

41.50 

26.40 + 

10. 

Medford. 

16 

4 

212 

330 

118 + 

13.30 

18.70 

5.40 + 

11. 

Fitchburg. 

14 

6 

740 

710 


61.30 

48.30 

13.00 - 

12. 

Chelsea. 

13 

7 

316 

597 

281 + 

20.90 

40.50 

19.60 + 

« 3 - 

Waltham. 

11 

9 

400 

496 

96 + 

29.30 

28.10 

1.20- 

14. 

Salem. 

10 

10 

894 

1000 

106 + 

57.20 

57.00 

.20 - 

* 5 - 

'Haverhill. 

5 

15 

676: 

722 

46 + 

37.00 

34.40 

2.60 - 

16. 

Woburn. 

5 

15 

266 

470 

204 + 

•8.30 

28.70 

10.40 + 

l 7 - 

Gloucester. 

4 

16 

253 

377 

124 + 

16.25 

14.20 

2.05 + 

18. 

Fall River. 

3 

17 

37 8 

435 

57 + 

29.10 

27.00 

2.10- 

19. 

Lowell. 

3 

«7 

565 

695 

130 + 

38.20 

45.20 

7.00 + 

20. 

Lynn. 

3 

1 7 

4 17 

54 ° 

123 + 

27.60 

33.00 

5.40 + 

21. 

Pittsfield. 

3 

1 7 

475 

680 

205 + 

31.60 

51.00 

i 9 - 4 ° + 

22. 

Worcester. 

3 

17 

396 

917 

53 i + 

51.00 

58.50 

7.50 + 

23. 

Lawrence. 

2 

18 

435 

570 

'35 + 

31.80 

52.00 

20.20 + 

24. 

Marlboro. 

2 

18 

290 

506 

216 + 

23.60 

25.60 

2.00 + 

2+ 

New Bedford . . 

2 

18 

1000 

763 

237- 

77.50 

53.00 

24.50- 

26. Newburyport. . 

2 

18 

962 

1190 

228 + 

39.20 

97 - 5 ° 

58.30 + 

27. 

Taunton. 

2 

18 

5°3 

610 

107 + 

33.80 

42.00 

8.20 + 

28. 

Chicopee. 

1 

19 

132 

163 

31 + 

12.80 

18.40 

5.60 + 

29. 

North Adams.. 

1 

19 

428 

610 

182 + 

41.50 

38.40 

3.10- 

3 °. 

Northampton.. 

1 

19 

600 

672 

72 + 

39.40 

46.5° 

7.10 + 

3 1 - 

Springfield .... 

1 

19 

862 

925 

63 + 

78.50 

66.00 

12.50- 

32. 

Holyoke. 

0 

20 

249 

440 

191 + 

26.20 

43.00 

16.80 + 


* Reports of Massachusetts Savings Bank Commissioner. 


131 
















































TABLE VII.—NATIONAL BANKS 


Amount of Deposits Per Capita in National Banks in Cities of 
Massachusetts, Classified by Number of License and No-License 
Years, from 1886 to 1905.* 


Cities 

Number of 
Years 

Per Capita Amount of 
Deposits 

No- 

License 

License 

LT\ 

00 

OO 

1905 

Increase 
( + ) or 
Decrease 
(-) 

1. Beverly. 

20 

0 

$27.20 

$57.70 

$30.50 + 

2. 'Cambridge. 

20 

0 

28.20 

14.60 

13.60- 

3. Everett. 

20 

0 

— 

— 


4. Malden. 

20 

0 

13.3° 

21.00 

6.70 + 

5. Newton. 

20 

0 

16.3O 

28.60 

12.30 + 

6. Quincy. 

20 

0 

24.20 

36.90 

12.70 + 

7. Somerville. 

20 

0 

— 

9.60 

— 

8. Melrose. 

19 

1 

— 

23.60 

— 

9. Brockton. 

18 

2 

41.00 

72.00 

31.00 + 

10. Medford. 

16 

4 

— 

14.30 

— 

11. Fitchburg. 

14 

6 

86.00 

90.50! 

4.50 + 

12. Chelsea. 

13 

7 

17.80 

38.00 

20.20 + 

13. Waltham. 

11 

9 

26.30 

31.60 

5.30 + 

14. Salem. 

10 

10 

73.00 

87.00 

14.00 + 

15. Haverhill. 

5 

«5 

72.00 

74 -oot 

2.00 + 

16. Woburn. 

5 

15 

17.30 

22.10 

4.80 + 

17. Gloucester. 

4 

16 

42.20 

77.50 

35.30 + 

18. Fall River. 

3 

17 

31.80 

50.50 

18.70 + 

19. Lowell. 

3 

17 

55.20 

72.00 

16.80 + 

20. Lynn. 

3 

l 7 

45 - 5 ° 

62.00 

16.50 + 

21. Pittsfield. 

3 

1 7 

78.00 

73 - 5 ° 

4.50- 

22. Worcester. 

3 

17 

91.50 

67.50 

24.00 - 

23. Lawrence. 

2 

18 

32.70 

47.50 

14.80 + 

24. Marlboro. 

2 

18 

27.50 

63.00 

35.50 + 

25. New Bedford... 

2 

18 

61.50 

61.50 


26. Newburyport... 

2 

18 

45.50 

73 - 5 ° 

28.00 + 

27. Taunton. 

2 

18 

46.00 

5 1 * 5 °t 

4.50 + 

28. Chicopee. 

1 

19 

10.75 

8 .8oj 

1.95 - 

29. North Adams . . 

1 

19 

38.60 

47.50 

8.90 + 

30. Northampton .. 

1 

19 

70.00 

108.00 

38.00 + 

31. Springfield. 

1 

19 

124.00 

165.00 

41.00 + 

32. Holyoke. 

0 

20 

33.20 

80.00 

46.80 + 


* U. S. Comptroller’s Report, 
t Last report 1904. 


132 





































TABLE VIII.—SCHOOL ATTENDANCE 


Total Number of all Children between Five and Nineteen Years of 
Age, and Number Attending Public and Private Schools in Cities of 
Massachusetts during 1905.* 


Cities 

Number of 
Years 

Total Number of Children 

5-19 Years in City, 

Census 1905 

Number in Public Schools 

5 Years and Over 

Number in Private 

Schools and Academies 

Total Number in Schools 

Over 5 Years 

Per cent of all Children 

in School Over 5 Years 

No-License 

License 

1. 

Beverly. 

20 

0 

3644 

3116 

46 

3162 

87.0 

2. 

Cambridge .. 

20 

0 

25686 

«4797 

4100 

18897 

73-5 

3 - 

Everett. 

20 

0 

8318 

6795 

— 

6795 

82.0 

4 - 

Malden. 

20 

0 

10472 

6957 

1310 

8267 

79.0 

5 * 

Newton. 

20 

0 

9432 

6363 

835 

7198 

76.4 

6. 

Quincy. 

20 

0 

8171 

6040 

270 

6310 

77-4 

7 - 

Somerville.. . 

20 

0 

17620 

11784 

1815 

13599 

77.0 

8. 

Melrose. 

19 

1 

3775 

3037 


3037 

80.5 

9 - 

Brockton.... 

18 

2 

12672 

8334 

910 

9244 

73.0 

10. 

Medford. 

16 

4 

5169 

4278 

25 

4303 

83.5 

11. 

Fitchburg ... 

l 4 

6 

9445 

4256 

2103 

6359 

67.5 

12. 

Chelsea. 

13 

7 

10672 

6883 

1035 

7918 

74.2 

> 3 - 

Waltham.... 

11 

9 

6778 

3277 

1271 

4548 

67.1 

14. 

Salem. 

10 

10 

10267 

5041 

2798 

7939 

76.5 

« 5 * 

Haverhill.... 

5 

«5 

9639 

5678 

2093 

777 1 

80.7 

16. 

Woburn. 

5 

15 

4270 

3127 

3 1 7 

3444 

80.7 

» 7 - 

Gloucester... 

4 

16 

6842 

4969 

243 

5212 

76.2 

18. 

Fall River. .. 

3 

!7 

32903 

15805 

5421 

21226 

64.5 

19. 

Lowell. 

3 

•7 

25292 

11654 

5284 

16938 

67.0 

20. 

Lynn. 

3 

17 

18645 

11844 

3040 

14884 

80.0 

21. 

Pittsfield.... 

3 

l 7 

6693 

4299 

630 

4929 

73-7 

22. 

Worcester... 

3 

1 7 

34346 

21631 

4202 

25563 

74 . 5 . 

23. 

Lawrence_ 

2 

18 

19806 

8314 

3912 

12226 

61.8 

24. 

Marlboro.. . . 

2 

18 

4098 

2505 

5°3 

3008 

73*5 

25. 

New Bedford 

2 

18 

21003 

9859 

2894 

12753 

60.8 

26. Newburyport 

2 

18 

3577 

2205 

659 

2864 

80.2 

27. 

Taunton .... 

2 

18 

8339 

5348 

839 

6187 

74.2 

28. Chicopee .... 

1 

19 

584' 

2610 

1323 

3933 

67.5 

29. 

North Adams 

1 

19 

6825 

3441 

1 5 1 4 

4955 

72.9 

30. 

Northampton 

1 

19 

543 ° 

2948 

949 

3897 

72.0 

3 1 - 

Springfield .. 

1 

>9 

18926 

12323 

2176 

14499 

76.6 

32. 

Holyoke. 

0 

20 

15620 

6411 

4631 

11042 

70.8 


* Report of State Board of Education, 1905. 

133 



























TABLE IX.—SCHOOL ATTENDANCE (i continued) 

Number of Children in Grammar Schools between Seven and Fourteen 
Years of Age; Number Enrolled in High Schools; and the Number of 
Graduates from these Institutions, in Cities in Massachusetts, during 
1906.* 



Number 
of Years 

Grammar Schools 

High Schools 




Nutn- 

Graduates 


Graduates 

Cities 

\7„ 


her of 



Num¬ 




/V 0 - 
1 ; 

Li - 

Pupils 



ber 




Ll- 

cense 

7-14 

Num¬ 

Per 

En¬ 

Num¬ 

Per 


cense 


Years 

ber 

Cent 

rolled 

ber 

Cent 




of Age 






1. Beverly. 

20 

0 

1886 

167 

8.8 

522 

5 1 

9.8 

2. Cambridge .. 

20 

0 

9946 

712 

7- 1 

1668 

178 

10.7 

3. Everett. 

20 

0 

4656 

348 

7-5 

5°3 

57 

n.3 

4. Malden. 

20 

0 

4786 

365 

7 - 6 

745 

107 

14.4 

5. Newton. 

20 

0 

3601 

301 

8.3 

945 

194 

20.5 

6. Quincy. 

20 

0 

4177 

396 

9-5 

716 

87 

12.2 

7. Somerville.. . 

20 

0 

77*5 

640 

8.3 

1424 

208 

14.7 

8. Melrose. 

19 

1 

1916 

207 

10.8 

469 

72 

> 5-3 

9. Brockton.... 

18 

2 

6029 

416 

6.9 

7>5 

V 

9.9 

10. Medford. 

16 

4 

2897 

221 

7.6 

5 2 3 

62 

11.8 

11. Fitchburg ... 

«4 

6 

2866 

182 

6.3 

606 

69 

11.4 

12. Chelsea. 

>3 

7 

4861 

3>3 

6.5 

459 

45 

9.8 

13. Waltham.... 

11 

9 

2028 

.85 

9.1 

426 

62 

14.5 

14. Salem. 

10 

10 

2871 

2 53 

8.8 

588 

86 

14.6 

15. Haverhill... . 

5 

15 

3845 

2 66 

6.9 

606 

80 

13.2 

10. Woburn. 

5 

>5 

i960 

105 

5-3 

289 

60 

20.8 

17. Gloucester.. . 

4 

16 

3208 

*75 

5-4 

453 

! 45 

9.9 

18. Fall River... 

3 

>7 

11349 

359 

3 - 2 

75 2 

IOI 

13.4 

19. Lowell. 

3 

17 

8498 

444 

5-2 

1019 

207 

20.3 

20. Lynn. 

3 

•7 

7 I 5 I 

460 

6.4 

919 

>55 

l6 '? 

21. Pittsfield.... 

3 

>7 

2109 

142 

6.7 

290 

40 

13.8 

22. Worcester ... 

3 

17 

14592 

737 

5.0 

2247 

257 

11.4 

23. Lawrence_ 

2 

18 

6440 

289 

4-5 

648 

75 

11.6 

24. Marlboro.... 

2 

18 

2058 

114 

5-5 

332 

26 

7.8 

25. New Bedford 

2 

18 

7649 

227 

3 ° 

428 

54 

12.6 

20. Newburyport 

2 

18 

>433 

105 

7-3 

3 1 9 

47 

> 4-7 

27. Taunton 

2 

18 

3430 

141 

4.1 

434 

5 <$ 

12.9 

28. Chicopee .... 

1 

19 

1927 

7 > 

37 

130 

20 

> 5-4 

29. North Adams 

1 

19 

2109 

1 3 1 

6.2 

290 

40 

13.8 

30. Northampton 

1 

19 

1942 

I2 5 

6.4 

369 

52 

14.1 

31. Springfield .. 

1 

19 

8022 

475 

5-9 

1225 

172. 

14.0 

32. Holyoke. 

0 

20 

4503 

299 

6.6 

681 

1 

88 

12.8 


* Report of State Board of Education, 1906. 

>34 




















































TABLE X.—PUBLIC RELIEF 


Ratio of Persons Receiving Public Relief per 1000 Inhabitants, and 
the Per Capita Cost of Such Relief in Cities of Massachusetts, Classified 
by the Number of License and No-License Years from 1886 to 1905.* 


Cities 

Number of 
Years 

Number of Per¬ 
sons Relieved 
per 1000 In¬ 
habitants 

Cost per Capita 

No-License 

License 

U~\ 

00 

00 

Lf\ 

O 

C- 

Increase ( + ) or 

Decrease (-) 

LT\ 

00 

00 

ir\ 

O 

S' 

Increase ( + ) or 

Decrease ( -) 

1. 

Beverly. 

20 

0 

25.2 

40.5 

15.3 + 

$0.83 

$0.85 

$.02 4* 

2. 

Cambridge... 

20 

0 

29.3 

13.4 

15.9- 

•53 

.49 

.04- 

3 - 

Everett. 

20 

0 

197 

14-7 

5 *°- 

.63 

.22 

.41 - 

4 - 

Malden. 

20 

0 

22.8 

23.3 

•5 + 

.60 

•44 

.16- 

5 - 

Newton. 

20 

0 

20.3 

22.2 

2.1 + 

.46 

•47 

.01 + 

6. 

Quincy. 

20 

0 

,5., 

17.0 

1.9+ 

•54 

•34 

.20 - 

7 - 

Somerville ... 

20 

0 

25.O 

1 4*7 

10.3- 

•54 

• 2 3 

• 3 1 “ 

8. 

Melrose. 

19 

1 

19.3 

20.5 

1.2+ 

•75 

.62 

■ l 3 “ 

9 - 

Brockton .... 

18 

2 

24.2 

23.0 

1.2 - 

•47 

•45 

.02 - 

10. 

Medford. 

16 

4 

I 1.2 

13.4 

2.2+ 

•57 

• 3 1 

.26 - 

11. 

Fitchburg.... 

14 

6 

35.0 

25.0 

10.0 - 

1.05 

.63 

42- 

12. 

Chelsea. 

>3 

7 

3.8 

47-3 

43*5 + 

•47 

•42 

•°5 ~ 

* 3 - 

Waltham .... 

11 

9 

I5.9 

10.0 

5 * 9 - 

.60 

•37 

• 2 3 “ 

14. 

Salem. 

10 

10 

5 1 -5 

72.0 

20.5 + 

1.03 

1.10 

.07 + 

1 5 - 

Haverhill. .. . 

5 

15 

29.0 

45 .0 

16.0 + 

• 5 2 

.89 

•37 + 

16. 

Woburn. 

5 

15 

30.0 

39-5 

9-5 + 

.87 

1.06 

.19 + 

17 * 

Gloucester... 

4 

16 

41.7 

36.6 

5 * 1 " 

•77 

1.11 

• 34 + 

18. 

Fall River .. . 

3 

17 

42.0 

I I 2.0f 

70.0 -f 

• 7 2 

1.12 

.40 + 

19. 

Lowell. 

3 

•7 

78.0 

50.0 

28.0- 

.67 

1.16 

•49 + 

20. 

Lynn. 

3 

1 7 

37.0 

I 9 .I 

17.9- 

.76 

.65 

.11 - 

21. 

Pittsfield .... 

3 

17 

29.2 

23.8 

54 - 

•57 

.80 

.23 + 

22. 

Worcester ... 

3 

17 

40.7 

16.4 

24.3- 

•43 

.38 

.05- 

23. 

Lawrence.... 

2 

18 

41.5 

36.2 

5 * 3 " 

.62 

.99 

•37 + 

24. 

Marlboro .... 

2 

18 

38.6 

40.5 

1.9+ 

•57 

•93 

.36 + 

25. 

New Bedford 

2 

18 

52.5 

37-4 

15. 1 - 

1.15 

.87 

.28- 

26. Newburyport 

2 

18 

51.0 

31.0 

20.0- 

1.09 

1.30 

.21 + 

27 - 

Taunton. 

2 

18 

31-3 

35 0 

3-7 + 

.88 

•79 

.09- 

28. Chicopee. 

1 

19 

41.0 

31.0 

10.0 - 

.92 

.93 

.01 + 

29. 

North Adams 

1 

19 

19.5 

19.1 

• 4 - 

.36 

•59 

.23 + 

3 °. 

Northampton 

1 

19 

33*4 

2 7-4 

6.0- 

.50 

.63 

.13 + 

3 1 - 

Springfield... 

1 

19 

22.6 

33.6 

11.0+ 

•57 

47 

.10- 

32. 

Holyoke. 

0 

20 

61.3 

51.0 

10.3- 

•44 

.76 

• 3 2 ~ 


* Reports of State Board of Charity; averages of 1882 to 1885 and 
1902 to 1905 used. f 1904, 51.0; 1906, 39.4. 


135 









































ir\ 

o 

O' 


I 

\o 

00 

00 


in 


<u 


• p—■< 

CJ 

£ 





u. 

UJ 

Jj 

w 

u 

►—< 

hJ 

CQ 

D 

cu 


c 

a> 

E 

cS 

CO 

tH- 

o 


in 

o 




c3 


‘ 5 , 

03 

u 

J- 

<U 

CL, 

T3 

C 

03 

(/) 

4-1 

c 

o3 

4-> 

'J 5 

o3 

JC 

c 


o 

o 

o 


X 

w 

nJ 

CQ 

< 

H 


<u 

CU 


2 

QZ 

o 

£ 

3 

Cu 

tuD 

.5 

'S 

o 

<u 

oc 


in 

C 

o 

t/> 

v- 

<u 

a. 


o 

o 


03 

Qd 


Waltham 

VJl$VJ 19$ JSOJ 

m <n w ao ^ to O'v) O'coco 00 00 vo cooo o 

lo tOvO vO 10 10 10 rf Tt-vO VO cOcOTtcOTtTt^tcOTt 

uotjvpi$oj 

OOOI X9$ p9tl9l]9}[ 
snosxdj fo xoqiuntf 

O Ttrf 0 o>oo 'O 'too >0 t>oH to>o Oi 

d 1-. d 'to d do « to m d fdoo d>ddfi o> 

n H « N H H HMMtOMC4C4HMMMM 

fotJOJ 

License 

No-license 

License 

tt 

tt 

it 

ti 

No-license 

License 

a 

No-license 

ti 

a 

it 

License 

No-license 

ti 

a 

tt 

a 

Salem 

VJlfffJ 19$ JSOJ 

m m a n 10 too to t-.'O own 0 O I'M h h ^ 

NKJWWNHOHNOOOOOOOOOOHN fOO 

MMMMHMMHHM MHMHHH 

uoijvpifoj 

OOOI X9$ P9091J921 
suosx9j fo X9q'tunj$ 

00 O 000 t'tflinO O r-~oo wo O O wt O 

'dodoo d 'ttd dod oh <d> 0 to'© co 'tNH « 

W) W W to to W) t u _ >'© -t W tf CO'O t>OWWlflN 

Kotjoj 

License 

No-license 

it 

License 

No-license 

ti 

H 

it 

License 

No-license 

tt 

License 

No-license 

tt 

Newburyport 

VJl$VJ X9$ JSOJ 

ci O' <n a \0 00 0"0 O h -t t'-'O hOM O' »o 

0 O' O' 0 0 « tototooo 0 «j to t to to t 0 

M IHHMMMMM wmmmwmmm 

uotjvjn$oj 

OOOI X9$ P9H91J9X 

suosx9j fo xoquinfi 

OOOOO VOOO in tJ-\o 0000 0 Op fN'O too 
d O' •t'd d td to d id xooo d- td'd d « d otH 
«o-t't'ttOtOto - ttOtOC4 m cO Cl cotOtOtN 0) to 

fotjoj 

License 

ti 

it 

it 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

tt 

a 

a 

a 

tt 

No-license 

License 

No-license 

License 

Fitchburg 

VJl$VJ X9$ JSOJ 

00 W't'tH WH tf 0"0 00 O O' O' r-CO NH Oco 

O 00 <0 O' t'-'O t-Hoo t^oo 0 00 h 00 r- t^o t-. -tj- 

M H MM 

uotjvjn$oj 

OOOI X9$ p9(i9ip-g 

suosxoj fo uoqiuntf 

H rtOO NO OWO O N >000 O tOtotJ-tOM O O 

0 oono h 4 n nw tr"© cd t^td 'd'd d h w 

n m to <ttt to to'O >o Tf tt) in 't'O tf -tf to to t 4 

£°n°j 

No-license 

it 

ti 

License 

No-license 

License 

No-license 

License 

No-license 

it 

ti 

“ 

it 

it 

License 

No-license 

License 

No-license 

a 

License 

Brockton 

VJl$VJ X9$ JSOJ 

t^vo 1000 Os Tt-vO to Tt*00 COM m Tt O N MOi 1 

rt rt 10 to 10 CO 

td 

uoijvjnfoj 

OOOI X9$ p9(l9ip}[ 

suosjgj fo xoqmnpi 

O CO 00 CO H 00 C4 M Tfcoo t--0 M'O'O WOiH t-. 

d w'd 4d O'© cdf-d -d-w cdvo d 'd d d4d 

eocONNNNNNNCoctcitoiocococOcocOH 


0) (U 

c/3 to 

C3 C 

^2 CJ- ^ U- 4- V- V. V. V. 

<u "T 0 "T 

uo 0 0 

ailz; 


vO t^CO Os O m co ^ tovo t^CO Os O w cs co Tt to 

00 00 00 00 OsOvOsOsOsOsOsOsOsOsO O O O O O 
0000000000000000000000000000 O' O' O' O' O' Os 

HHHMHMHMMMHMMHMHMMWM 


I36 


Note: The Reports of the State Board of Charity are for the year ending March 31; the license year begins May 1, i. e., the Report for 
1905 covers 11 months of the license year beginning May, 1904. 


























































TABLE XII.—POLICE DEPARTMENT 


Per Capita Cost of Police Departments in Cities of Massachusetts, 
Classified by the Number of No-License Years from 1886 to 1905 * 


Cities 

Number of 
Years 

Cost per Capita 

No- 

License 

License 

1885 

1905 

Increase ( + ) or 
Decrease (-) 

1. Beverly. 

20 

0 

$ .61 

$1.11 

$.50 + 

2. Cambridge.... 

20 

0 

1.31 

i -57 

.26 + 

3. Everett. 

20 

0 

.49 

•97 

.48 + 

4. Malden. 

20 

0 

.62 

•94 

.32 + 

5. Newton. 

20 

0 

.99 

1.91 

.92 + 

0. Quincy. 

20 

0 

.32 

.92 

60 + 

7. Somerville .... 

20 

0 

.83 

1.12 

.29 + 

8. Melrose. 

19 

1 

.21 

.87 

.66 + 

9. Brockton. 

18 

2 

•74 

1.19 

•45 + 

10. Medford. 

16 

4 

• 7 2 

1.47 

•75 + 

11. Fitchburg. 

14 

6 

.76 

1.07 

.31 + 

12. Chelsea. 

13 

7 

.92 

1.25 

•33 + 

13. Waltham. 

11 

9 

.58 

.82 

.24+ 

14. Salem. 

10 

10 

.93 

1.04 

.11 + 

15. Haverhill_ 

5 

15 

.91 

•95 

.04+ 

16. Woburn 3 . 

5 

15 

.63 

1.00 

•37 + 

17. Gloucester_ 

4 

16 

•79 

*-34 

•55 + 

18. Fall River 2 .... 

3 

17 

1.27 

1 -37 

.10 + 

19. Lowell 3 . 

3 

17 

1.04 

I - 5 2 

.48 + 

20. Lynn 3 . 

3 

1 7 

1.04 

1.27 

.23 + 

21. Pittsfield 1 . 

3 

17 

.67 

1.01 

• 34 + 

22. Worcester. 

3 

l 7 

1.13 

1.27 

.14 + 

23. Lawrence. 

2 

18 

.83 

1.04 

.21 + 

24. Marlboro 4 . 

2 

18 

.50 

•84 

• 34 + 

25. New Bedford.. 

2 

18 

1.44 

1.66 

.22 + 

26. Newburyport . 

2 

18 

.87 

•97 

.10 + 

27. Taunton. 

2 

18 

.85 

1.24 

•39 + 

28. Chicopee. 

1 

19 

.64 

.71 

.07 + 

29. North Adams . 

1 

19 

•44 

1.01 

•57 + 

30. Northampton . 

1 

19 

.26 

• 5 2 

.26 + 

31. Springfield.... 

1 

19 

.85 

1.29 

•44 + 

32. Holyoke. 

1 

19 

•72 

1.08 

.36 + 


* Compiled from Annual Reports of Police Departments of the 
several cities. 

begins 1887 3 Begins 1890 

2 “ 1889 4 “ 1891 


137 
































TABLE XIII.—ARRESTS 


Average Number of Arrests for Drunkenness per 1000 Inhabitants 
in Massachusetts Cities during License and No-License Years, 1886 to 
1905. 


Cities 

No-License 

Years 

Cities 

License 

Years 

Number Years 

Average Number of 
Arrests 'per 1000 
Inhabitants 

Number Years 

Average Number of 

Arrests per 1000 

/ nbabitants 

l. Beverly 1 . 

20 

10.4 

15. Haverhill 5 .... 

15 

32.0 

2. Cambridge 2 .. . 

20 

18.0 

16. Woburn 8 . 

15 

40.0 

3. Everett 2 . 

20 

13.0 

17. Gloucester . .. 

16 

31.0 

4. Malden 2 . 

20 

94 

18. Fall River 7 ... 

>7 

22.5 

5. Newton 2 . 

20 

15.7 

19. Lowell. 

17 

42. <; 

6. Quincy 2 . 

20 

J 5-3 

20. Lynn. 

*/ 

1 7 

39.6 

7. Somerville 2 .... 

20 

15.2 

21. Pittsfield. 

17 

36.8 

8. Melrose 3 . 

19 

5.8 

22. Worcester.... 

>7 

33-6 

9. Brockton. 

18 

21.5 

23. Lawrence .... 

18 

31.6 

10. Medford 2 . 

16 

7.1 

24. Marlboro 8 ... . 

18 

22.1 

11. Fitchburg. 

•4 

* 9-7 

25. New Bedford. 

18 

23.6 

12. Chelsea 4 . 

•3 

15.2 

26. Newbury port 

18 

41.0 

13. Waltham. 

11 

14.2 

27. Taunton. 

18 

35-5 

14. Salem. 

10 

14.4 

28. Chicopee. 

>9 

18.9 




29. North Adams 

19 

30.8 




30. Northampton 

19 

24.8 




31 . Springfield .. 

19 

28.8 




32. Holyoke. 

20 

20.2 


Average for 

14 years of 

no-license beginning with 

ft ft n 

1892. 

2 ft it 

10 “ “ 

1896. 

3 tt a 

7 “ “ 

a it it 

1899. 

4 ft it 

7 “ “ 

it it a 

1896. 

( a ft 

12 “ “ 

license 

1890. 

6 “ << 

13 “ “ 

•< « „ 

1889. 

7 a ft 

“ « 

ft it it 

1889. 

8 a «< 

12 “ “ 

a “ “ 

1891. 


138 














































TABLE XIV.—ARRESTS (i continued) 

Number of Arrests of Non-Residents for Drunkenness in Five 
Cities during No-License Years, and in Ten Cities during License 
Years * 


Cities 

Year 

Arrests for Drunkenness 

Total 

Non-Residents 

Number 

Per Cent 


No 

1: 

No 


No 


No 

J 2 


Li- 

Ll- 

Li- 

License 

Li¬ 

License 

Li¬ 

Lt- 

r cp 


cense 


cense 


cense 


cense 

LC rlo C 

Brockton. 

1899 

1898 

456 

1621 

90 

556 

19.8 

34-3 

Everett. 

1904 


268 


113 


42.1 


Fitchburg. .. . 

1906 

1905 

385 

1220 

57 

396 

14.8 

32.4 

Salem. 

1905 

1906 

870 

2538 

242 

1365 

27.8 

54.0 

Waltham. 

1907 

i 1900 

368 

634 

7 i 

327 

* 9-3 

5 1 -5 

Boston. 


1906 


35728 


15947 


44-5 

Chelsea. 


1906 


1255 


560 


44.6 

Fall River.... 


1906 


2497 


423 


16.9 

Gardner!. 


1906 


301 


.67 


55-4 

Haverhill. ... 


1906 


813 


256 


3 1 -5 

Lynn. 


j 1906 


3843 


1103 


28.6 


* From Annual Reports of Cities which publish statistics of non¬ 
residents arrested for drunkenness, 
f Town. 


139 









































table xv .—arrests ( continued ) 

Number and Ratio per 1000 Inhabitants of Arrests for Drunkenness of Residents of No-License Communities, 
Classified by Number Arrested in License Cities and in Places of Residence.* 


C/3 

H 
c n 
W 
P 4 

< 

h) 

< 

H 

O 

H 


Per 1000 

Population 

vo co ci n toOtNH tn»OM tofOw O' ^LoO *>■ O 

0 d .06 .vd dcotN 4- d co d 4 ro c to ^o 6 

LO CO (ON H W Ci H H ««lOtO»ACOC<«H 

to 

M 

CO 


to Tf CO O O' to <N COOO CO ^too VO too CO Tj-co 


w "£ 

M 

*> 3 

Ov ‘co • w m rt to rf n O'h too to O' m *d- m r-» cs 

O' 

*g £ 

00 * 00 • toco 4" O' CO M COOO VO VO to H O'VO 

O' 

S±; 

a^5 

te; 

M CO M H M 

vO 

M 


Ph 

o 

w 

< w 
fc 

ss 

H W 

in Ph 


PL, 


§ 

s 


Per iooo 
Population 

O co t"* tovo o co tovq m n in ooc Ooo 

CO I O' ! 4h H IO dvo 4 CS CC CN M CO CO'O CO <N VO 

Cl CS MMM MMCOCiCCMMM 

O' 

to 

M 







k **«* 

^ to 

O O' 00 -rj* to Cl IOOO vo Ttoo O^ t^vo CO CO CO O' 



to • <N • CS COCO H NNO NtnHNd’fnvtfO 

o 

S w 

CO • CO CO com m Tf tJ- cOiO vO O co 

M M 

to 

CO 




fe: 




C/3 

w 

M 

H 

M 

u 

w 

c/3 

w 

u 

M 

h-; 

55 

M 

C/3 

H 

C /3 

§ 

P4 

< 


O § 

8 * 

M >--»* 

t-s. 


CO ‘o 

“I £ 


to 

CO 

k ^ 

V*. <y\ 
to 

Q> 'o 


M iO rf h to N O' O' OvO O'cfO'O rf rf OvO m m to 

OV'O vd <N H NH Ncj-WCO NH M CO 4 6 to 4 to fO 

CS MMM MMMCSCOMMMM 


to O'O OQO 'tcONO'NrfioiOO OOfO'OH O' 
rf O O O' O hvO rf'O rf (N Mt^O cf h O m m 

t}- H to M IO lo W M H cf (N COCO ^ O' ^ 

C4 


• • I fl • I Ih *H • « « *H _,«•••••• »H 

j g Sc j gf! a *2 o a • • a • a -2 

S © rj O 43 <l> O <y r* O 0 ri O m O <u 

_2J ^ - C3 tfl'- m £ c/t - - < FZ n v 0 in 0 <n ~ £ 

O d O'* ajaJo ^ £ 0 73 >, o C ^ 

wpq h« OSn K 


vO 

IO 


vO 

00 


15 

Q> 

/—' 
•it to 

^ 2 . 
3 c* 

<b 


CO t} - mmm |n*vO to rj- to r^oo COO N M W to 

cc O' fOH cs o eooo O'oo <n O' O' n r^co O 

W • t>* • 't H O TfOvO cs CO vO CO o O OO cs <M rj* 

tr> . • M^fONCO O'd’H rto CO cOOO 0"0 M 

M O' CN CO COMM MCOMMCS CO'O CC 


VO 

M 

O' 

CO 

to 


<o 

c W to 

to <o 

U 

cs»x* kj 


w 

<3 


0 ) 

>- 

<D~ 

PQ 


0 

o 

4-» 

u " 

o 

M 

PQ 


(U 

bO 

”d 


to% 

M 0 

0 


.h 4 J 3 d fl 
M r-s •—• 71 


JD v 


rO 0) <D O 


M 

o 

o P; 

«§ & 

eg a ^ 

o-r^D 


§1 


a s-S Ktl-ss 

S> 4 jgd«iU(uJ 5 ^ 

owS 5 aSSS!?!?<S 


<u 


g s g 

•§ S 

, 0 o 
CScncn 


• >> 

• u 

• ^ 

•X) 

J ^ 
C w 

A\* 

4 -J 4 -» 

; cn 


VO 

Ox « « 

Ot~ ^ - 


t^vO 


vo 

t^vO r^vO 


O O x >* 

o- 

o~ 

o o o 

o 

o o^ ^ 

O" 

o- 

O O O O''* 

o 

M M 

M 

M 

M M M M 

M 


C/5 

03 

bO 

c3 

M 

0 > 

> 

"O 

c 

cj 

C/5 

■*-> 

o 

H 


140 


Compiled from police records of cities and Second Annual Report of the Boston Police Commissioner. 
































































TABLE XVI.—ARRESTS OF WOMEN 


Number of Women Arrested for Drunkenness in License and No- 
License Cities and proportion of Total Arrests for Drunkenness, 
during 1907* 


Cities 

Total Number 
of Arrests for 

Women Arrested for 
Drunkenness 


Drunkenness 

Number 

Per Cent. 

No-License 

Beverly. 

309 

3 

2.6 

Brockton. 

1079 

3 1 

2.9 

Cambridge. 

1756 

128 

7-3 

Everett. 

329 

10 

3.0 

Fitchburg. 

443 

7 

1.6 

Malden. 

350 

23 

6.6 

Medford. 

113 

5 

4-4 

Melrose. 

IOI 

13 

27 

Newton. 

488 

13 

27 

Quincy. 

579 

34 

2-3 

Somerville. 

963 

65 

6 7 

Waltham. 

393 

14 

3.6 

Totals. 

6903 

346 

5.0 

License 

Chelsea f. 

1362 

102 

7-5 

Chicopee. 

574 

19 

3-3 

Fall River. 

2432 

3 i 7 

13.0 

Gloucester. 

843 

20 

2.4 

Haverhill. 

1320 

136 

10.3 

Holyoke. 

1126 

88 

7.8 

Lawrence. 

2418 

249 

10.3 

Lowell. 

3768 

413 

11.0 

Lynn. 

4265 

229 

5-4 

Marlboro. 

246 

5 

2.0 

New Bedford .. 

1610 

164 

10.2 

Newbury port f 

489 

>3 

27 

North Adams.. 

612 

«4 

2-3 

Northampton.. 

460 

11 

2.4 

Pittsfield. 

1241 

29 

23 

Salemf. 

1460 

34 

•2.3 

Springfield. 

2551 

189 

7-5 

Taunton. 

1411 

38 

27 

Woburn. 

599 

23 

3.8 

Worcester. 

4164 

198 

47 

Totals.. 

32951 

2291 

6.9 


* Annual Report of Prison Commissioners for year ending Sept. 30, 
1907. 

f Seven months of year license and 5 months no-license. The 
classification of cities in above table is based on the licensing policy in 
force September 30, 1906, to May 1, 1907. 

141 












































TABLE XVII.—DRUGGISTS 


Number and Ratio per 1000 Inhabitants of Druggists in Cities of 
Massachusetts Holding Sixth Class Licenses and State Certificates 
during 1907. 


Cities 

Popula¬ 

tion 

1905 

Number of Drug¬ 
gists Holding— 

Total 

Sixth 
Class 
Licenses * 

State 

Certifi- 

catesf 

Num¬ 

ber 

Per 1000 
Inhabi¬ 
tants 

No License 

Beverly. 

Brockton. 

Cambridge. 

Chelsea \ . 

Everett. 

Fitchburg. 

Malden. 

Medford. 

Melrose. 

Newburyport % 

Newton. 

Quincy. 

Salem % . 

Somerville. 

Waltham. 

15223 
47794 
97434 
37289 
29 m 
33 021 

14295 

14675 

36927 

28076 

37627 

69272 

26282 

3 

58 

10 

26 

12 

22 

35 

7 

28 

2 

"8 

23 

“6 

10 

9 

25 

13 

10 

28 

60 

10 

8 

26 

23 

12 

6 

10 

22 

9 

25 

35 

13 

•7 

.6 

.6 

•3 

1 

.6 

.6 

•4 

•3 

•7 

•5 

•5 

Totals. 

544649 

168 

139 

297 

•5 

License 






Chicopee. 

20191 

6 


6 

•3 

Fall River. 

105762 

42 


42 

•4 

Gloucester. 

26011 

15 


15 

.6 

Haverhill. 

37830 

25 


25 

•7 

Holyoke. 

49934 

3 ' 


3 1 

.6 

Lawrence. 

70050 

28 


28 

•4 

Lowell. 

94889 

49 


49 

•5 

Lynn. 

77042 

4 i 


4 i 

•5 

Marlboro. 

14073 

>3 


13 

•9 

New Bedford .. 

74362 

5 2 


52 

•7 

North Adams.. 

22150 

14 


14 

.6 

Northampton.. 

19957 

9 


9 

•4 

Pittsfield. 

25001 

12 


13 

• 5 

Springfield. 

73540 

38 


33 

• 5 

Taunton. 

30967 

13 


13 

•4 

Woburn. 

14402 

9 


9 

.6 

Worcester. 

128135 

48 


48 

•4 

Totals. 

1118296 

445 


445 

•4 


* Compiled from annual reports of Secretary of the Commonwealth, 
f Compiled from figures obtained from State Board of Pharmacy, 
t No-license from May 1, 1907. The classification of cities is based 
on the licensing policy on May 1, 1907. 

142 

















































TABLE XVIII.—VIOLATION OF LAW 

Number of Druggists Licensed to sell Liquor in No-License Cities 
of Massachusetts, Number of Persons in Same paying United States 
Retail Liquor Dealer’s Tax, and Number and Ratio of Arrests for 
Violation of the Liquor Laws in 1907. 


No-License 

Cities 

Number of 
Druggists 
Licensed 
to Sell 
Liquor 

Number of 
Persons 
Paying 
United 
States Re¬ 
tail Liquor 
Dealer's 
Tax 

Arrests for Violation 
of Liquor Laws 

Number 

Per 1000 
/ nhabitants 

Beverly. 

10 

3 i 

10 

.65 

Brockton. 

28 

29 

149 

3.10 

Cambridge. 

60 

68 

43 

•44 

Chelsea. 

10 

32 

18* 

.48 

Everett. 

8 

9 

2 

.07 

Fitchburg. 

26 

36 

28 

.85 

Malden. 

2 3 

34 

14 

•37 

Medford. 

12 

11 

1 

.05 

Melrose. 

6 

8 

2 

.10 

Newburyport.... 

10 

21 

25 

1.70 

Newton. 

22 

26 

3 

.08 

Quincy. 

9 

11 

25 

.89 

Salem. 

25 

39 

4 8f 

1.22f 

Somerville. 

35 

42 

6 

.09 

Waltham. 

13 

14 

36 

1 *37 


* 1908 f 1905 


143 



























INDEX 




INDEX 


Alcohol drinking, 75, 76, 82, 109 
Alcohol sales, 82, 89 

in Newbury port, 86 
American-born people, 115 
Arrests for drunkenness, 51-62 
(Tables) 138-140 
women, (Table) 141 
Arrests for violation of liquor 
laws, 93 
(Table) 143 
Avon, 57 

Bank deposits and license, 27-29 
Beer, per capita consumption in 
U. S„ 71 

Beverly, arrests for drunkenness, 
55 

arrests for violation of 
liquor laws, 94 
growth, 13 

police protection expendi¬ 
ture, 47 

public charity, 40, 41 
revenue tax payers, 94 
Boston, arrests for drunkenness, 
54 

exodus of working popula¬ 
tion, 14 
license vote, 9 
omitted in this study, and 
why, 4 

suburbs and other cities, 
4 > 5 


Brewing associations, attitude 
toward no-license, 77, 78 
Brockton, alcohol drinking, 82 
arrests for drunkenness, 
51, 52, 60, 61 

arrests for violation of 
liquor laws, 94, 95 
druggists’ certificates, 81 
druggists’ sales, 82, 86 
employers’ views, 107, 108, 
109, 112 

estimated importation of 
liquor in no-license years, 
72 , 74 
growth, 15 

police protection expendi¬ 
ture, 47 

public charity, 41, 42 
revenue tax payers, 95 
tax rates, 20 

Business conditions under no¬ 
license, 101-103 

Cambridge, arrests for drunk¬ 
enness, 56 
growth, 13 

police protection expendi¬ 
ture, 48 

public charity, 41 
Charity. See Public charity. 
Chelsea, revenue tax payers, 95 
Chicopee, arrests for drunken¬ 
ness, 51 


147 



INDEX 


Chicopee, police protection ex¬ 
penditure, 47, 48 
school attendance, 34 
Clubs, revenue tax paying, 94 
Co-operative bank shareholders, 
27, 28 
(Table) 130 

Delivery of liquor, 67, 68 
Deposits in banks, 27-29 
Druggists, licenses, 8, 9 

number in no-license as 
compared with license 
towns, 81 
sales by, 81-89 
(Table) 142 

Drug stores and local politics, 87 
Drunkenness, arrests for, 51-62 
effect of abolition of sa¬ 
loons, 51, 52 
non-residents, 53 
of women, (Table) 141 
police methods, 57 
Prison commissioners’ re¬ 
ports, 52 

reports of cities, 52 
See also Intemperance. 
(Tables) 138-140 

Employers’ personal interest in 
employes, m, 113 
Employers’ point of view, 107- 
116 

Enforcement of no-license law, 
93-97 

conclusions, 97 
in cities removed from a 
license center, 95, 96 


Enforcement of no-license law in 
residential suburbs of Boston, 
95 

Everett, arrests for drunkenness, 
56 

growth, 13 
public charity, 41 
Express business for liquor trans¬ 
portation, 66 

Express companies and liquor 
transportation, 66, 67 

Fall River, arrests for drunken¬ 
ness, 54, 55 
public charity, 41 
school attendance, 34 
Finlanders, 89, 115 
Fitchburg, arrests for drunken¬ 
ness, 51, 52, 60, 61 
arrests for violation of 
liquor laws, 94 
delivery of liquor from 
freight office, 70 
druggists, 75, 77 
druggists' certificates, 81 
druggists' licenses, 81, 82 
druggists’ sales, 84, 85, 86 
employers’ views, 107, 109- 
111 

enforcement of no-license 
law, 96 

estimated importation of 
liquor in no-license years, 
73 

growth, 16 

kitchen bar-rooms, 76 
police protection expendi¬ 
ture, 47 

public charity, 41, 42 
revenue tax payers, 94 


148 




INDEX 


Fitchburg, school attendance, 
34 

tax rates, 20 

transportation permits, 73, 
75 

French, no, 111 

Gardner, arrests for drunken¬ 
ness, 58 

“General express business,” 67 

Greeks, 58 

Groveland, 57 

Haverhill, 57 

conditions under license, 

59, 60 

employers’ views, 107, 113, 
114 

enforcement of no-license 
law, 97 

police protection expendi¬ 
ture, 48 

public charity, 41 

Hebrews, 109 

High School graduates, 34, 35 

Holyoke, arrests for drunken¬ 
ness, 51 

public charity, 41 

Intemperance, as a cause of 
poverty, 39 

unskilled labor and, 42 

Internal Revenue tax payers, 94 

Intoxication. S zz Drunkenness. 

Ipswich, 54, hi 

arrests for drunkenness, 56 

no-license policy, 57, 5 8 


Irish Americans, 115 
Italians, 58, 109, no 

Jamaica ginger, 89 


Kitchen bar-rooms, 52, 57, 74, 
76 

Lawrence, school attendance, 
34 

Legislation in Massachusetts on 
the liquor question, summary, 
119-125 

License history in Massachu¬ 
setts, 6-9 

Licenses for transporting liquor, 
66, 67 

License vote, (Table) 126 

“Licorice,” 82 

Liquor, per capita consumption 
in U. S., 71 

by express companies, 67, 
68 

by freight, 68, 69 
delivery, 67, 68 
importation into no-license 
cities, 65-78 

inter-state traffic, 67, 68, 69 
legislation in Massachu¬ 
setts, summary, 119-125 
marking goods, 67 
permits, 66 
quality, 61, no, 115 
substitutes, 89 
transportation of, 65-66 

Local option in Massachusetts, 

7, 8 


149 



INDEX 


Lowell, public charity, 41 
school attendance, 34 
Lynn, 54 

arrests for drunkenness, 58 
public charity, 41 

Malden, arrests for drunken¬ 
ness, 56 

revenue tax payers, 95 
Marlboro, police protection ex¬ 
penditure, 48 

Medford, public charity, 4 
Melrose, growth, 13 
public charity, 41 
Metropolitan cities and their 
tax, 23 

Milwaukee, brewers’ conven¬ 
tion, 1908, 77, 78 

National bank deposits, 28 
(Table) 132 

New Bedford, school attendance, 
34 

Newburyport, 57, 58 
alcohol sales, 86 
arrests for drunkenness, 52, 
54* 55* 56, 57* 60 
arrests for violation of 
liquor laws, 94 
druggists’ certificates, 81 
druggists’ sales, 86 
employers’ views, 107, 111, 

115 

enforcement of no-license 
law, 96 

estimated importation of 
liquor in no-license years, 
73 * 74 


Newburyport, growth, 15, 16 
police protection expendi¬ 
ture, 48 

public charity, 42 
revenue tax payers, 94 
savings bank deposits, 28 
tax rates, 20 

transportation permits, 75 
Newton, arrests for drunkenness, 
56 

police protection expendi¬ 
ture, 48 

No-license, as a measure of 
expenditure, 62 
as a preventive measure, 61 
tendency in small places, 
57 * 58 

No-license cities, permits for 
delivery of liquor, 67, 68, 69, 
70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75 
No-license law, enforcement of, 
93-97 

Non-residents, arrests for drunk¬ 
enness, 53 

North Adams, public charity, 41 
Northampton, police protection 
expenditure, 47, 48 


Parochial schools, 33 
Patent medicines, 89 
Per capita bank deposits, 28 
Per capita revenue from license 
fees and taxes, 20-22 
Permits for liquor transporta¬ 
tion, 66, 67, 74, 76 
Physicians' prescriptions, 87 
Poles, 58, 109, 115 
Police, expenditure for, 47, 48 
cost, (Table) 137 


150 




INDEX 


“Pony express” bill, 66 
Pony expresses, 73 
Population, as related to license 
and no-license, 13-16, (Table) 

127 

Poverty, intemperance as a 
cause, 39 

unskilled labor and, 40 
Private schools, 33 
Property and taxation, (Table) 

128 

Prostitution, license and, 59 
Public charity, expenditure for, 
39-43 

individual cases, 42, 43 
industrial cities, 40 
unskilled labor and, 42 
(Tables) 135, 136 

Quincy, arrests for drunkenness, 
55 , 56 

arrests for violation of 
liquor laws, 94 

Railroads, liquor transporta¬ 
tion, 77 

Revenue per capita from license 
fees and taxes, 20-22 
Russians, 109 

Salem, arrests for drunkenness, 
52, 54, 55, 58, 60 
arrests for violation of 
liquor laws, 94 
druggists’ certificates, 81, 
82 

druggists’ licenses, 82, 84 

15 


Salem, druggists’ sales, 82-84, 
86, 87 

drug store equipments, 83, 
84 

employers' views, 107, 112 
enforcement of no-license 
law, 96, 97 

estimated importation of 
liquor in no-license years, 
72 , 73 

growth, 13, 16 
importation of liquor, 77 
police protection expendi¬ 
ture, 47 

public charity, 42 
revenue tax payers, 94 
tax rates, 20 

transportation permits, 75 
Sales by druggists, 81-89 
Saloon-keepers and the law, 59-61 
Saloon, temptation of, 108, 109, 
11 o, 115 

Saturday nights, 56, 59, 108 
Savings bank deposits, 27, 28 
(Table) 131 

School attendance, 33-35 
industrial cities, 34 
residential cities, 34 
School children, (Tables) 133, 
134 

School graduates, 34 
Schools, movement of pupils 
between public and pri¬ 
vate, 33, 34 
parochial, 33 
private, 33 
Shoe workers, 112 
Sixth class licenses, sales under, 
81, 84, 86-89 
Skilled labor, 112, 113 



INDEX 


Somerville, arrests for drunken¬ 
ness, 5 6 

public charity, 41 
State Board of Pharmacy, 9, 81, 
86 

permits, 81, 86, 87 
“Stretch gang,” 82, 111 
Substitutes for liquor, 89 
Suburban and non-suburban 
cities, 4-6 

Suburban cities, growth, 13 

Taxes, (Table) 129 
Tax rate, factors, 22, 23 

relation to license and no¬ 
license, 19-23 

Transportation of liquor, 65-66 
Treating, 108, 115 

Unskilled labor, public charity 
and, 42 

intemperance and, 42 

Violation of liquor laws, arrests, 
(Table) 143 


Waltham, arrests for drunken¬ 
ness, 52, 55, 60 
arrests for violation of 
liquor laws, 94 
druggists’ certificates, 81 
druggists’ sales, 84, 86 
employers’ views, 107, 112, 
11 3 

estimated importation of 
liquor in no-license years, 
7 i. 72 , 74 
growth, 13, 16 
police protection expendi¬ 
ture, 47 

public charity, 40, 41, 42 
school attendance, 34 
tax rate 1908, 22 
tax rates, 20 

Women, arrests for drunkenness, 
60 

(Table) 141 
patrons of saloons, 59 
Worcester County Brewers, 78 
Worcester, public charity, 41 


152 






r 


1 

■ 

THE 

SURVEY 

A JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTIVE PHILANTHROPY 


npHE SURVEY is a weekly magazine for all those who 

I believe that progress in this country hinges on 
social service: that legislation, city government, the 
care of the unfortunate, the cure of the sick, the edu¬ 
cation of children, the work of men and the homes of 
women, must pass muster in their relation to the com¬ 
mon welfare. 

As Critic, The Survey examines conditions of life 
and labor, and points where they fail: how long hours, 
low pay, insanitary housing, disease, intemperance, in¬ 
discriminate charity, and lack of recreation, break down 
character and efficiency. 

As Student, The Survey examines immigration, in¬ 
dustry, congestion, unemployment, to furnish a solid 
basis of fact for intelligent and permanent betterment. 

As Program, The Survey stands for Prevention: Pre¬ 
vention of Poverty through wider opportunity and ade¬ 
quate charity; Prevention of Disease through long-range 
systems of sanitation, of hospitals and sanatoriums, of 
good homes, pure food and water, a chance for play 
out-of-doors; Prevention of Crime through fair laws, 
juvenile courts, real reformatories, indeterminate sen¬ 
tence, segregation, discipline and probation; Preven¬ 
tion of Inefficiency, both industrial and civic, through 
practice in democracy, restriction of child labor, fair 
hours, fair wages, enough leisure for reading and recrea¬ 
tion, compulsory school laws and schools that fit for 
life and labor, for the earning of income and for rational 
spending. 

EDWARD T. DIVINE - - - EDITOR 
GRAHAM TAYLOR - ASSOCIATE EDITOR 

SO 00 YEARLY ' 5 -- ms 

NEW YORK 1 CHICAGO 
























RUSSELL SAGE FOUNDATION PUBLICATIONS 


THE PITTSBURGH SURVEY 


The most significant piece of investigation the country has 
seen.—“American Magazine.” 

The findings of the Pittsburgh Survey in six volumes are in 
course of publication, under the editorial direction of Paul U. 
Kellogg, Director of the Pittsburgh Survey. Four volumes are 
now ready: 

THE STEEL WORKERS 

By JOHN A. FITCH 

Expert, New York State Department of Labor, 1909-10 
A study of the men who make steel by one who lived among 
them. 


8vo, 350 pages; 39 full-page illustrations by 
Lewis W. Hine, Joseph Stella and others. 


Price, Postpaid, $1.71 


HOMESTEAD: THE HOUSEHOLDS OF 
A MILL TOWN 

By MARGARET F. BYINGTON 
Assistant Secretary, Charity Organization Department 
Russell Sage Foundation 

A clearly drawn picture of the home and community life of 
the steel workers. 


8vo, 310 pages ; 4 1 full-page illustrations by 
Lewis W. Hine, Joseph Stella and others. 


Price, Postpaid, $1.70 


WORK-ACCIDENTS AND THE LAW 

By CRYSTAL EASTMAN 

Attorney-at-Law; Secretary New York State Industrial 
Accident Commission 


During the year studied, five hundred industrial wage- 
earners were killed at their work in Allegheny County, Pa. The 
story of their hazards is compelling. 

8vo, 350 pages; 38 full-page illustrations by p; p AC i *j 
Lewis W. Hine, Joseph Stella and others. NiC8, rOSipeSG, .pl./l 


WOMEN AND THE TRADES 

By ELIZABETH BEARDSLEY BUTLER 
Former Secretary of the Consumers’ League of New Jersey 
The first general survey of the occupations open to wage¬ 
earning women in an American city. 

8vo, 440 pages; 40 full-page illustrations p • p AC i -j no 
of women at their work, by Lewis W. Hine. « iiCc, I OSlpa’Q, J>I.i£ 


The entire set of the Pittsburgh Survey volumes, to be issued 
at $1.50 net each ($10 per set, postpaid), will be as follows: 
The Pittsburgh District— Symposium by John R. Com¬ 
mons, Florence Kelley, Robert A. Woods, Peter Roberts, 
Charles Mulford Robinson and others. 

The Steel Workers—J ohn A. P'itch. 

Homestead: The Households of a Mill Town— 
Margaret F. Byington. 

Women and the Trades— Elizabeth Beardsley Butler. 
Work-Accidents and the Law— Crystal Eastman. 
Pittsburgh : The Gist of the Survey— Paul U. Kellogg. 


CHARITIES PUBLICATION COMMITTEE 

105 East 22d Street, New York 






OUR SLAVIC 
FELLOW CITIZENS 

By EMILY GREENE BALCH 
Associate Professor of Economics at Wellesley College 

F EW recent books of serious purpose have made so 
great an impression on the reviewers. The New 
York Sun, widely known for its critical discrimination, 
devoted over five columns to a review. 

“Miss Balch, ’ ’ said the Sun, ‘ ‘ is richly gifted with the 
qualities and training demanded for the complicated and 
important task which she has accomplished in this volume. 
The literary charm, the well-balanced proportion of fact, 
description and analysis (both intellectual and moral), and 
the remarkable self-restraint and fairmindedness which 
she exhibits, raise her work above the level of mere 
sociological investigation, and establish it in the category 
of books which the ordinary reader should not pass by.” 

The London Spectator, one of the leading literary 
journals of England, gave it over a page review, finding 
it “a remarkable example of the thoroughness with which 
the work of economic investigation is carried on in the 
United States.” The review sums up with this sentence: 
“We can warmly recommend Our Slavic Fellow Citizens 
to every one who is interested either in the future of the 
Slavs, with which the future of Europe promises to be 
more and more bound up, or in the conditions and pros¬ 
pects of European immigrants in the New World.” 

FROM OTHER REVIEWERS 
An important contribution to the literature of immigration. 
—Boston “ Transcript.” 

Miss Balch has been studying this question for years and her 
work is regarded as a very important achievement.—“ Review of 
Reviews.” 

Miss Balch has given us one of the most valuable books on 
immigration that we know of, a work full of guidance, of truth, of 
understanding.—Chicago “ Record-Herald.” 

Prof. Balch may well dispute with Miss Tarbell for the Ameri¬ 
can laurel due womanhood for patient investigation and consum¬ 
mate skill in marshalling her accumulations.—Pittsburgh “ Post.” 

Prof. Balch brought to her task an insight into the history, the 
grouping and the race psychology of these people which made one 
believe that she was a Slav herself. ... To this she adds a 
statistician’s eye for detail, a socialist’s discernment of causes and 
the facile pen of a ready writer.—Prof. Edward A. Steiner in 
“ The Survey.” 

8 vo. 550 Pages; 48 full-page Illustra¬ 
tions ; Tables. Price, Postpaid, $2.50 

CHARITIES PUBLICATION COMMITTEE 

105 East 22d Street, New York 






























One copy del. to Cat. Div. 


FEB 2? 1911 
















































































































































































